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

OSHA Inspection: SEATEX, LLC

Referral inspection · Health discipline

On , OSHA opened a referral health inspection of SEATEX, LLC in 239 TX HWY 36, ROSENBERG, TX 77471 (NAICS 325611). OSHA activity number 345763270.

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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Seatex, LLC — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Seatex, LLC is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Establishment
SEATEX, LLC
Site address
239 TX HWY 36
City
ROSENBERG
State
TX
ZIP
77471
Mailing
445 TX HWY 36, ROSENBERG, TX 77471
Inspection type
Referral (C)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Health
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
325611
Employees
17
Ownership type
A

11 citations on file for this inspection.

1910.23 B12

Deleted Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jul 28, 2022
Penalty
Initial $4,754 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.23(b)(12): The employer did not ensure that each employee used at least one hand to grasp the ladder when climbing up and down it:   a) In Building B, on February 1, 2022, where the employer did not ensure that the employees used at least one hand while climbing the A-frame ladder when carrying and pouring bags of paraformaldehyde into the vessel tank.
Recent events (3)
  • — F (S) $0
  • — C (S) $4754
  • — Z (S) $4754

1910.132 A

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Jul 28, 2022
Abate by
Sep 1, 2022
Penalty
Initial $13,052 · Current $13,052
29 CFR 1910.132(a): Protective equipment was not used when necessary whenever hazards capable of causing injury and impairment were encountered:   a) In Building B, on February 1, 2022, where a Tyvek hooded suit, sleeved Tychem /PVC apron, or a Proshield suit with PVC apron and Tyvek sleeves were not used when blending  aqua ammonia and paraformaldehyde.
Recent events (3)
  • — F (S) $13052
  • — C (S) $13052
  • — Z (S) $13052

1910.134 D01 III

Deleted Serious Gravity 10 2 instances 5 exposed
Issued
Jul 28, 2022
Abate by
Sep 1, 2022
Penalty
Initial $13,052 · Current $0 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.134(d)(1)(iii): The employer did not identify and evaluate the respiratory hazard(s) in the workplace, including a reasonable estimate of employee exposures to respiratory hazards and identification of the contaminant's chemical state and physical form. Where the employer could not identify or reasonably estimate the employee exposure, the employer did not consider the atmosphere to be IDLH:   a) In Building B, on February 1, 2022, and times prior to, where employees' exposure to ammonia during the blending of paraformaldehyde and aqua ammonia was not estimated.  b) In Building B, where employees' exposure to ammonia and nitrogen oxides during the manufacturing of 135K58 (Pronitridine) was not estimated.
Recent events (3)
  • — F (S) $0
  • — C (S) $13052
  • — Z (S) $13052

1910.134 D02 I

Deleted Serious Gravity 10 2 instances 5 exposed
Issued
Jul 28, 2022
Abate by
Sep 1, 2022
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(d)(2)(i): The employer did not provide either a full facepiece pressure demand SCBA certified by NIOSH for a minimum service life of thirty minutes or a combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied-air respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply:  a) In Building B,  where the employer did not provide a full facepiece pressure demand SCBA certified by NIOSH for a minimum service life of thirty minutes or a combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied-air respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply for employees while manufacturing 135K58 (Pronitridine).  b) In Building B, on February 1, 2022, and times prior to, where the employer did not provide a full facepiece pressure demand SCBA certified by NIOSH for a minimum service life of thirty minutes or a combination full facepiece pressure demand supplied-air respirator with auxiliary self-contained air supply for employees while pouring the paraformaldehyde into the aqua ammonia.
Recent events (3)
  • — F (S) $0
  • — C (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.1048 G03 I A

Serious Gravity 10 2 instances 5 exposed
Issued
Jul 28, 2022
Abate by
Sep 1, 2022
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $13,052
29 CFR 1910.1048(g)(3)(i)(A): The employer did not select and provide to employees the appropriate respirators specified in 29 CFR 1910.134(d)(3)(i)(A):   a) In Building B, on February 1, 2022, and times prior to, where the employer did not select the appropriate respirator for employees while manufacturing 135K58 (Pronitridine).
Recent events (3)
  • — F (S) $13052
  • — C (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 E01

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jul 28, 2022
Abate by
Sep 1, 2022
Penalty
Initial $4,754 · Current $4,754
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:    a) In Building B, where the employer did not ensure that an employee received a medical evaluation prior to respirator use.
Recent events (3)
  • — F (S) $4754
  • — C (S) $4754
  • — Z (S) $4754

1910.134 K01

Serious Gravity 1 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Jul 28, 2022
Abate by
Sep 1, 2022
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(k)(1): The employer did not provide effective training that covered the required elements in 1910.134(k)(1)(i) through 1910.134(k)(1)(vii):   a) In Building B, where the employer did not ensure employees received respiratory protection training prior to respirator use.
Recent events (3)
  • — F (S) $0
  • — C (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.134 F02

Other-than-serious Gravity 1 2 instances 2 exposed
Issued
Jul 28, 2022
Abate by
Sep 1, 2022
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, model or make) was used, and at least annually thereafter:    a) In Building B, where the employer did not ensure that an employee was fit tested prior to respirator use.  b) In Building B, where the employer did not ensure that an employee was fit tested at least annually.
Recent events (3)
  • — F (O) $0
  • — C (S) $0
  • — Z (S) $0

1910.1200 H03 II

Serious Gravity 10 2 instances 4 exposed
Issued
Jul 28, 2022
Abate by
Sep 1, 2022
Penalty
Initial $130,524 · Current $35,000 Reduced
29 CFR 1910.1200(h)(3)(ii):  Employee training did not include the physical, health, simple asphyxiation, combustible dust, and pyrophoric gas hazards, as well as hazards not otherwise classified, of the chemicals in the work area:   a) In Building B, on February 1, 2022, and times prior to, where the employer did not train the employees on the physical and health hazards of the chemicals in the workplace prior to the employees pouring paraformaldehyde into an aqua ammonia solution.  b) In Building B, where the employer did not train the employees on the physical and health hazards of the chemicals in the workplace prior to the manufacturing of 135K58 (Pronitridine).
Recent events (3)
  • — F (S) $35000
  • — C (W) $130524
  • — Z (W) $130524

1910.1200 H03 III

Deleted Willful Gravity 10 2 instances 4 exposed
Issued
Jul 28, 2022
Abate by
Sep 1, 2022
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR  1910.1200(h)(3)(iii):  Employee training did not include the measures employees could take to protect themselves from chemical hazards, including specific procedures the employer had implemented to protect employees from exposure to hazardous chemicals, such as appropriate work practices, emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used:   a) In Building B, on February 1, 2022, and times prior to, where the employer did not train the employees on the appropriate work practices, emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment prior to the employees pouring paraformaldehyde into an aqua ammonia solution.  b) In Building B, where the employer did not train the employees on the appropriate work practices, emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment prior to the manufacturing of 135K58 (Pronitridine).
Recent events (3)
  • — F (W) $0
  • — C (W) $0
  • — Z (W) $0

1910.1048 D01 I

Other-than-serious 2 instances 5 exposed
Issued
Jul 28, 2022
Abate by
Sep 1, 2022
Penalty
Initial $10,360 · Current $20,000
29 CFR 1910.1048(d)(1)(i): Employees of a workplace covered by this standard were not monitored to determine their exposure to formaldehyde:  a) In Building B, on February 1, 2022, and times prior to, where the employer did not determine the employees' exposure to formaldehyde during the manufacturing of 135K58 (Pronitridine).
Recent events (3)
  • — F (O) $20000
  • — C (W) $10360
  • — Z (W) $10360

View Seatex, LLC'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 345763270.

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