OSHA Inspection: TASUS TEXAS CORPORATION

Issued

Apr 6, 2012

Abate by

Apr 20, 2012

Penalty

Initial $2,295 · Current $1,607 Reduced

Hazardous substances 8111

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1):  The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program as provided by 29 CFR 1910.95(g) by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels:  On or about March 03, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not provide baseline and annual audiometric testing for employees exposed to noise levels exceeding the action level of 50 % dose, or equivalent 85 decibels for an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) in the blow molding area.  Employees were exposed to noise levels such as the following:  An employee in Blow Molding ML11 was exposed to continuous noise at 68.4 % of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour Time Weight Average sound level of 85 dBA) during the 428 minute sampling period on March 03, 2012.  For a full eight hour work shift this exposure would be equivalent to an average sound level of 87.2 dBA.  Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the 52 minutes not sampled.  An employee in Blow Molding ML10 was exposed to continuous noise at 50.1 % of the permissible daily noise exposure (8-hour Time Weight Average sound level of 85 dBA) during the 449 minute sampling period on March 03, 2012.  For a full eight hour work shift this exposure would be equivalent to an average sound level of 85.0 dBA.  Exposure calculations included a zero increment for the 31 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Apr 6, 2012

Abate by

Apr 20, 2012

Penalty

Initial $3,600 · Current $2,520 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(i):  Procedures were not developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees were engaged in activities covered by this section:  Injection Molding Area:  On or about February 24, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not develop written procedures with specific steps for the control of electrical and pneumatic energy regarding the robots used with injection molding machines.

Issued

Apr 6, 2012

Abate by

Apr 20, 2012

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(3):  All energy isolating devices that were needed to control the energy to the machine or equipment were not physically located and operated in such a manner as to isolate the machine or equipment from the energy source(s):  Injection Molding Area: On or about February 23, 2012, and at times prior thereto, the employer did not have a safe guarding device for each robot cage door to prevent the robot arms from becoming engaged when employee(s) entered the areas to service or program the robots used with injection molding machines when in manual mode.