Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,197,549Inspections Most recent open 2026-08-27 Last loaded 2026-08-31

OSHA Inspection: TEXOMA MILLWRIGHT AND WELDING, INC.

Planned inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of TEXOMA MILLWRIGHT AND WELDING, INC. in 1325 SE 3RD AVE., DURANT, OK 74701 (NAICS 332710). OSHA activity number 341257715.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Texoma Millwright and Welding, INC. for free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Texoma Millwright and Welding, INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
1325 SE 3RD AVE.
City
DURANT
State
OK
ZIP
74701
Mailing
PO BOX 216, CALERA, OK 74730
Inspection type
Planned (H)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
Non-union (B)
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
332710
Employees
15
Ownership type
Private (A)

6 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.212 A03 II

Serious Gravity 10 11 instances 15 exposed
Issued
May 4, 2016
Abate by
May 26, 2016
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $1,600 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):     The employer has not ensured point of operation guarding was in place to protect employees from having any part of their body in the danger zone during operation.          a)   This violation was observed on or about February 17, 2016, the Mittler Brothers Machine and Tool pipe coping machine point of operation was not guarded exposing employees to hazards associated with being caught in the machinery.        b)   This violation was observed on or about February 17, 2016, the Piranha Iron Worker points of operation on the back of the machine were not guarded exposing employees to hazards associated with being caught in the machinery.         c)   This violation was observed on or about February 17, 2016, the punch for the Piranha Iron Worker was not guarded exposing employees to hazards associated with being caught in the machinery.        d)   This violation was observed on or about February 17, 2016, the unused portion of the blade for the HEM Saw was not guarded exposing employees to hazards associated with contact with the blade while the saw was in operation.          e)   This violation was observed on or about February 17, 2016, the ends of the ram for the Standard Industrial press brake were not guarded exposing employees to hazards associated with being caught in the machinery.          f)   This violation was observed on or about February 17, 2016, the back of the Standard Industrial press brake was not guarded exposing employees to hazards associated with being caught in the machinery.        g)   This violation was observed on or about February 17, 2016, the ingoing nip point for the belt sander was not guarded exposing employees to hazards associated with being caught in the machinery.          h)   This violation was observed on or about February 17, 2016, the guard on the back of the Edwards Iron Worker was not properly attached exposing employees to hazards associated with being caught in the machinery.          i)   This violation was observed on or about February 17, 2016, the point of operation of the Standard Shear was not guarded exposing employees to hazards associated with being caught in the machinery.       j)   This violation was observed on or about February 17, 2016, the point of operation of the Roper Whitney Roller was not guarded exposing employees to hazards associated with being caught in the machinery.      k)   This violation was observed on or about February 17, 2016, the point of operation of the Craftsman Drill Press was not guarded exposing employees to hazards associated with being caught in the machinery.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1600
  • · Z (S) $2800

1910.215 A04

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 15 exposed
Issued
May 4, 2016
Abate by
May 6, 2016
Penalty
Initial $1,700 · Current $1,000 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:    On or about February 17, 2016, the employer did not ensure the workrest on both sides of the Baldor grinder was adjusted to within one-eighth inch of the grinding wheel exposing employees to hazards associated with wheel breakage including struck by hazards.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1000
  • · Z (S) $1700

1910.215 B09

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 15 exposed
Issued
May 4, 2016
Abate by
May 6, 2016
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:  On or about February 17, 2016, the employer did not ensure tongue guards on both sides of the Baldor grinder were adjusted to within one-fourth inch of the grinding wheel exposing employees to hazards associated with wheel breakage including struck by hazards.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.215 D03

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 15 exposed
Issued
May 4, 2016
Abate by
May 6, 2016
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.215(d)(3): The contact surface(s) of wheel(s), blotter(s) or flange(s) on grinding machine(s) were not flat and free or foreign matter:  On or about February 17, 2016, the employer did not ensure the surface of the wheel was maintained flat exposing employees to hazards associated with wheel breakage, including struck by hazards.
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $0
  • · Z (S) $0

1910.1026 D01

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 15 exposed
Issued
May 4, 2016
Abate by
Jun 17, 2016
Penalty
Initial $2,800 · Current $1,600 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1026(d)(1): The employer with a workplace or work operation covered by this standard did not determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure for each employee exposed to chromium (VI):    On or about February 17, 2016, the employer did not determine the 8-hour time-weighted average exposure to chromium (VI) for employees engaged in work operations such as, but not limited to, welding, cutting and grinding material containing chromium metal (stainless steel). Employees were exposed to hazards associated with contact with chromium (VI).
Recent events (2)
  • · I (S) $1600
  • · Z (S) $2800

1910.1200 E01

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 15 exposed
Issued
May 4, 2016
Abate by
Jun 17, 2016
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:  On or about February 17, 2016, the employer did not develop and implement a written hazard communication program exposing employees to hazards associated with contact with hazardous chemicals.
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). OSHA publishes its own view of this case as inspection number 341257715.

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