ROSENBERG, TX ·
OSHA Inspection: ATLAS FOUNDATION
Referral inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a referral safety inspection of ATLAS FOUNDATION in 1402 BAND ROAD, ROSENBERG, TX 77471 (NAICS 238910). OSHA activity number 339606063.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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
- ATLAS FOUNDATION
- Site address
- 1402 BAND ROAD
- City
- ROSENBERG
- State
- TX
- ZIP
- 77471
- Mailing
- 8945 SOLON, HOUSTON, TX 77064
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Referral (C)
- 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
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 238910
- Employees
- 40
- Ownership type
- Private (A)
Citations
8 citations on file for this inspection.
1926.303 B01
- Issued
- Jun 2, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.303(b)(1): Grinding machines were not equipped with safety guards in conformance with the requirements of ANSI B7.1-1970, Safety Code for the Use, Care, and Protection of abrasive wheels, and paragraph (d) of this section. On the East side of the main building, on February 28, 2014, employees were using a Dewalt grinder model 28402 serial number 862386 to cut rebar, exposing employees to struck by and amputation hazards.
Recent events (2)
- · I (O) $1400
- · Z (S) $2800
1926.651 C02
- Issued
- Jun 2, 2014
- Abate by
- Jun 17, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $3,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.651(c)(2): A stairway, ladder, ramp or other safe means of egress was not located in trench excavations that were 4 feet (1.22m) or more in depth so as to require no more than 25 feet (7.62m) of lateral travel for employees: a. In excavation (a) located on the East side of the site, on February 28, 2014, employees did not have a safe means of egress available, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught between hazards. b. In excavation (b) located on the East side of the site, on February 28, 2014, employees did not have a safe means of egress available, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught between hazards. c. In excavation (c) located on the East side of the site, on February 28, 2014, employees did not have a safe means of egress available, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught between hazards. d. In excavation (g) located on the East side of the site, on February 28, 2014, employees did not have a safe means of egress available, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught between hazards. e. In excavation (i) located on the East side of the site, on February 28, 2014, employees did not have a safe means of egress available, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught between hazards.
Recent events (2)
- · I (O) $1750
- · Z (S) $3500
1926.651 G01 I
- Issued
- Jun 2, 2014
- Abate by
- Jun 17, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $2,100 · Current $1,050 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.651(g)(1)(i): Where oxygen deficiency (atmospheres containing less than 19.5 percent oxygen) or a hazardous atmosphere exists or could reasonably be expected to exist, such as in excavations in landfill areas or excavations in areas where hazardous substances are stored nearby, the atmospheres in the excavation shall be tested before employees enter excavations greater than 4 feet (1.22 m) in depth. a. In excavation (a) located on the East side of the site, on February 28, 2014, employees were working in excavations deeper than 4 feet where atmospheres containing less than 19.5 % could reasonably exist were not tested exposing employees to suffocation hazards. b. In excavation (b) located on the East side of the site, on February 28, 2014, employees were working in excavations deeper than 4 feet where atmospheres containing less than 19.5 % could reasonably exist were not tested exposing employees to suffocation hazards. c. In excavation (c) located on the East side of the site, on February 28, 2014, employees were working in excavations deeper than 4 feet where atmospheres containing less than 19.5 % could reasonably exist were not tested exposing employees to suffocation hazards. d. In excavation (g) located on the East side of the site, on February 28, 2014, employees were working in excavations deeper than 4 feet where atmospheres containing less than 19.5 % could reasonably exist were not tested exposing employees to suffocation hazards. e. In excavation (i) located on the East side of the site, on February 28, 2014, employees were working in excavations deeper than 4 feet where atmospheres containing less than 19.5 % could reasonably exist were not tested exposing employees to suffocation hazards.
Recent events (2)
- · I (O) $1050
- · Z (S) $2100
1926.651 G02 I
- Issued
- Jun 2, 2014
- Abate by
- Jun 17, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $4,900 · Current $1,400 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.651(g)(2)(i): Emergency rescue equipment, such as breathing apparatus, a safety harness and line, or a basket stretcher, was not readily available where hazardous atmospheric conditions existed or could reasonably be expected to develop during work in an excavation. In excavations located on the East side of the building, on February 28, 2014, employees were working in excavations where rescue equipment such as breathing apparatuses, safety harnesses and line were not available, exposing employees to suffocation hazards.
Recent events (2)
- · I (O) $1400
- · Z (S) $4900
1926.651 I02 IV
- Issued
- Jun 2, 2014
- Abate by
- Jun 17, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $3,500 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.651(i)(2)(iv): The employer did not have a registered professional engineer approve the determination that the excavation work would not pose a hazard to the employees. On February 28, 2014, and at times thereto; the employer did not ensure that a registered professional engineer analyzed and determined the safety of the excavations under the Fort Bend County Community Center, exposing employees to struck-by and engulfment hazards.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $0
- · Z (S) $3500
1926.651 I03
- Issued
- Jun 2, 2014
- Abate by
- Jun 17, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $3,500 · Current $0 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.651(i)(3): Sidewalks, pavements, or appurtenant structures had been undermined and a support system or another method was not provided to protect employees from the possible collapse of such structures: In excavation (f) located on the North side of building two, on February 28, 2014, employees did not have a support system or other method of protection while undermining the sidewalk next to the building, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught between hazards.
Recent events (2)
- · I (S) $0
- · Z (S) $3500
1926.651 J02
- Issued
- Jun 2, 2014
- Abate by
- Jun 17, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $2,800 · Current $1,400 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.651(j)(2): Protection was not provided by placing and keeping excavated or other materials or equipment at least 2 feet (.61m) from the edge of excavations, or by the use of retaining devices that were sufficient to prevent materials or equipment from falling or rolling into excavations, or by a combination of both if necessary. a. In an excavation (E ) located on the East side of the site, On February 28, 2014, employees were not protected from spoil piles from being within two feet of the excavation, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught in between hazards. b. In an excavation (G ) located on the East side of the site, On February 28, 2014, employees were not protected from spoil piles from being within two feet of the excavation, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught in between hazards. c. In an excavation (J ) located on the East side of the site, On February 28, 2014, employees were not protected from spoil piles from being within two feet of the excavation, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught in between hazards. d. In an excavation (L ) located on the East side of the site, On February 28, 2014, employees were not protected from spoil piles from being within two feet of the excavation, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught in between hazards. e. In an excavation (M ) located on the East side of the site, On February 28, 2014, employees were not protected from spoil piles from being within two feet of the excavation, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught in between hazards. f. In an excavation (N ) located on the East side of the site, On February 28, 2014, employees were not protected from spoil piles from being within two feet of the excavation, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught in between hazards. g. In an excavation (O ) located on the East side of the site, On February 28, 2014, employees were not protected from spoil piles from being within two feet of the excavation, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught in between hazards. h. In an excavation (P ) located on the East side of the site, On February 28, 2014, employees were not protected from spoil piles from being within two feet of the excavation, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught in between hazards. i. In an excavation (R ) located on the East side of the site, On February 28, 2014, employees were not protected from spoil piles from being within two feet of the excavation, exposing the employees to struck-by or caught in between hazards.
Recent events (2)
- · I (O) $1400
- · Z (S) $2800
1926.651 K01
- Issued
- Jun 2, 2014
- Abate by
- Jun 17, 2014
- Penalty
- Initial $3,500 · Current $1,750 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.651(k)(1): Daily inspections of excavations, the adjacent areas, and protective systems were not made by a competent person for evidence of a situation that could have resulted in possible cave-ins, indications of failure of protective systems or hazardous atmospheres, or other hazardous conditions: On the East side of the work site, on February 28, 2014, the employer did not ensure a competent person conducted inspections of excavations before work began or throughout the shift where employees were exposed to struck-by and engulfment hazards.
Recent events (2)
- · I (O) $1750
- · Z (S) $3500
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238910)
More inspections in TX
Source
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 339606063.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.