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

OSHA Inspection: ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. HOUSTON BREWERY

Planned inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. HOUSTON BREWERY in 775 GELLHORN DR., HOUSTON, TX 77029 (NAICS 312120). OSHA activity number 338924566.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Anheuser-Busch, INC. Houston Brewery — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Anheuser-Busch, INC. Houston Brewery is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
775 GELLHORN DR.
City
HOUSTON
State
TX
ZIP
77029
Mailing
775 GELLHORN DR., HOUSTON, TX 77029
Inspection type
Planned (H)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
A
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
312120
Employees
570
Ownership type
A

5 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.119 D03 II

Serious Gravity 10 4 instances 28 exposed
Issued
Jun 14, 2013
Abate by
Jul 1, 2013
Penalty
Initial $7,000 · Current $7,000
29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii):  The employer did not document that the equipment in the process complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices:     The employer does not ensure it documented that equipment in the process complied with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP).      Instance a.  The violation occurred in the Powerhouse on or about February 25, 2013 and at times prior thereto where the employer failed to ensure an ammonia detector was installed in the engine room in accordance with RAGAGEP such as ASHRAE 15 - 1994.  This condition exposed employees to the hazards of fire, explosions, or the inhalation of ammonia vapors.      Instance b.  The violation occurred in the Powerhouse on or about February 25, 2013 and at times prior thereto where the employer failed to ensure remote emergency shutdown of the equipment was provided immediately outside the entrance to the machinery room in accordance with RAGAGEP such as ASHRAE 15 - 1994. This condition exposed employees to the hazards of fire, explosions, or the inhalation of ammonia vapors.   Instance c.  The violation occurred in the Powerhouse on or about February 25, 2013 and at times prior thereto where the employer failed to ensure emergency mechanical ventilation system(s) was activated by an ammonia detector; OR ran continuously and provided with an alarm to detect failure or shutdown of the system in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE-15 - 1994. This condition exposed employees to the hazards of fire, explosions, or the inhalation of ammonia vapors.   Instance d.  The violation occurred in the Powerhouse on or about February 25, 2013 and at times prior thereto where the employer failed to ensure that combustion air for the boiler(s) was not from the room where the ammonia refrigerant was used; OR an ammonia detector was installed that would automatically shutdown the combustion process (boiler) in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE-15 - 1994. This condition exposed employees to the hazards of fire, explosions, or the inhalation of ammonia vapors.      Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date the employer must submit documentation showing it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps it is taking to ensure it documented that equipment in the process complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
Recent events (3)
  • — R (S) $7000
  • — C (S) $7000
  • — Z (S) $7000

1910.119 E03 V

Other-than-serious 2 instances 28 exposed
Issued
Jun 14, 2013
Abate by
Jul 1, 2013
Penalty
Initial $7,000 · Current $3,500 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(3)(v):  The process hazard analysis did not address facility siting.        The employer does not ensure the process hazard analysis addressed facility siting.      The violation occurred in the Powerhouse on or about February 25, 2013 and at times prior thereto where the employer failed to ensure the initial, and re-validation of the process hazard analysis addressed the siting of the control room and maintenance facilities within the ammonia refrigeration engine room.  This condition exposed employees to the hazards of fire, explosions, or the inhalation of ammonia vapors.       Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date the employer must submit documentation showing it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps it is taking to ensure the process hazard analysis addressed facility siting.
Recent events (3)
  • — R (O) $3500
  • — C (S) $7000
  • — Z (S) $7000

1910.119 E06

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 26 exposed
Issued
Jun 14, 2013
Abate by
Jul 1, 2013
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.119(e)(6): The employer did not update and revalidate by a team meeting the requirements in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, to assure that the process hazard analysis is consistent with the current process, at least every five (5) years after the completion of the initial process hazard analysis.  The employer does not ensure that the initial process hazard analysis (PHA) was updated and revalidated at least every five (5) years.    The violation occurred in the Powerhouse on or about March 6, 2013 and at times prior thereto where the employer failed to ensure that the 2007 process hazard analysis was updated and revalidated within five (5) years.  This condition exposed employees to the hazards of fire, explosions, or the inhalation of ammonia vapors.     Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date the employer must submit documentation showing it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps it is taking to ensure that the initial process hazard analysis (PHA) was updated and revalidated at least every five (5) years.
Recent events (3)
  • — R (S) $0
  • — C (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.119 J02

Other-than-serious 4 instances 28 exposed
Issued
Jun 14, 2013
Abate by
Jul 1, 2013
Penalty
Initial $5,000 · Current $2,500 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2):  The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of process equipment.        The employer does not ensure written procedures are established and implemented to maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of process equipment.      The violation occurred in the Powerhouse on or about February 25, 2013 and at times prior thereto where the employer failed to ensure detailed written procedures were established and implemented for testing of safety cutouts. Identified cutouts include, but not limited to, the Compressor Discharge High/Low Pressure, Compressor High/Low Oil Pressure Differential, Compressor High Discharge Temperature, and High/Low Vessel Levels. This condition exposed employees to the hazards of fire, explosions, or the inhalation of ammonia vapors.       Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date the employer must submit documentation showing it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps it is taking to ensure written procedures are established and implemented to maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of process equipment.
Recent events (3)
  • — R (O) $2500
  • — C (S) $5000
  • — Z (S) $5000

1910.119 J04 II

Deleted Serious Gravity 5 10 instances 28 exposed
Issued
Jun 14, 2013
Abate by
Jul 1, 2013
Penalty
Initial $5,000 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(ii):  Inspections and testing procedures performed on process equipment to maintain its mechanical integrity, did not follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.    The employer does not ensure inspections and tests performed on process equipment to maintain its on-going mechanical integrity followed recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP).    The violation occurred in the Powerhouse on or about February 25, 2013 and at times prior thereto where the employer failed to ensure the 5-year major independent inspection and tests of pressure vessels followed RAGAGEP such as IIAR Bulletin 110. This condition exposed employees to the hazards of fire, explosions, or the inhalation of ammonia vapors.  Identified vessels include but not limited to:   a.  #1 Liquid Ammonia Receiver (SAP#10009021)    b.  #2 Liquid Ammonia Receiver (SAP#10009018)    c.  #3 Liquid Ammonia Receiver (SAP#10009020)    d.  #4 Liquid Ammonia Receiver (SAP#10009019)    e.  #7 Ammonia Condenser (SAP#10008990)    f.   #6 Ammonia Condenser (SAP#10008994)    g.  #2 Ammonia Condenser (SAP#10008992)    h.  S.H. 9 Glycol Chiller (SAP# 10012463)    i.   Ammonia Accumulator #1 (SH-8-SAP#10009081)    j.   Ammonia Accumulator #2 (SH-8-SAP#10010604)     Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1903.19, within ten (10) calendar days of the abatement date the employer must submit documentation showing it is in compliance with the standard, including describing the steps it is taking to ensure inspections and tests performed on process equipment to maintain its on-going mechanical integrity followed recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.
Recent events (3)
  • — R (S) $0
  • — C (S) $5000
  • — Z (S) $5000

View Anheuser-Busch, INC. Houston Brewery's full OSHA safety record →

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 338924566.

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