OSHA Inspection: TOP SHELF MANUFACTURING INC.

Issued

Jul 25, 2025

Abate by

Aug 20, 2025

Penalty

Initial $6,621 · Current $6,621

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:  On or about March 3, 2025, the employer failed to have a respiratory protection program for employees required to wear respirators including, but not limited to, N95s while polishing and grinding in the polish area.

Issued

Jul 25, 2025

Abate by

Aug 20, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

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:   On or about March 3, 2025, the employer failed to provide medical evaluations to employees required to wear respirators including, but not limited to, N95s while polishing and grinding in the polish area.

Issued

Jul 25, 2025

Abate by

Aug 20, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator and at least annually thereafter:   On or about March 3, 2025, the employer did not ensure that employees using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator including, but not limited to, N95s were fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator.

Issued

Jul 25, 2025

Abate by

Aug 20, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(k)(3): Training was not provided prior to requiring employees to use a respirator in the workplace:   On or about March 3, 2025, the employer failed provide respiratory protection training to employees required to wear respirators including, but not limited to, N95s while polishing and grinding in the polish area.

Issued

Jul 25, 2025

Abate by

Aug 14, 2025

Penalty

Initial $9,268 · Current $9,268

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(c):The employer did not ensure that no employee was exposed to an airborne concentration of respirable crystalline silica in excess of 50 g/m3, calculated as an 8-hour TWA:  On or about May 1, 2025, an employee performing polishing and grinding in the polishing area was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.115 mg/m3 during the 430 minute sampling period. This is approximately 2.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3. Exposure calculations include zero exposure increment for the 50 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jul 25, 2025

Abate by

Aug 14, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(f)(1): The employer did not use engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica to or below the PEL, unless the employer can demonstrate that such controls are not feasible:   On or about May 1, 2025, the employer failed to provide engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica to or below the PEL when an employee performing polishing and grinding in the polishing area was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.115 mg/m3 during the 430 minute sampling period. This is approximately 2.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3. Exposure calculations include zero exposure increment for the 50 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jul 25, 2025

Abate by

Aug 14, 2025

Penalty

Initial $9,268 · Current $9,268

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1053(f)(2)(i): The employer did not establish and implement a written exposure control plan:  On or about May 1, 2025, the employer failed to establish and implement a written exposure control plan that includes a description of the tasks in the workplace that involve exposure to respirable crystalline silica, a description of the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection used to limit employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica for each task, and a description of the housekeeping measures used to limit employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica when employees in the polishing area were overexposed to respirable crystalline silica when polishing and grinding.

Issued

Jul 25, 2025

Abate by

Aug 14, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(d)(3)(i): The employer did not perform initial monitoring to assess the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee on the basis of one or more personal breathing zone air samples that reflect the exposures of employees on each shift, for each job classification, in each work area:   On or about May 1, 2025, the employer failed to perform initial monitoring for each employee who is or may reasonably be expected to be exposed to respirable crystalline silica in each work area. Employees cut, polish, and grind countertops that contain silica.

Issued

Jul 25, 2025

Abate by

Aug 14, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(e)(1): The employer did not establish a regulated area wherever an employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of respirable crystalline silica was, or could have been reasonably expected to be, in excess of the permissible exposure limit (PEL):  The employer failed to establish a regulated area wherever employee's exposure to airborne concentrations of respirable crystalline silica is in excess of the PEL.    a) On or about May 1, 2025, an employee performing polishing and grinding in the polishing area was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.115 mg/m3 during the 430 minute sampling period. This is approximately 2.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3. Exposure calculations include zero exposure increment for the 50 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jul 25, 2025

Abate by

Aug 14, 2025

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(i)(1)(i): The employer did not make medical surveillance available at no cost to each employee, and at a reasonable time and place, for each employee who has been occupationally exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the action level for 30 or more days per year:   The employer failed to make medical surveillance available to employees that are occupationally exposed to respirable crystalline silica above the action level for more than 30 days a year.  a) On or about May 1, 2025, an employee performing polishing and grinding in the polishing area was exposed to respirable crystalline silica at an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) of 0.115 mg/m3 during the 430 minute sampling period. This is approximately 2.3 times the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.05 mg/m3. Exposure calculations include zero exposure increment for the 50 minutes not sampled.

Issued

Jul 25, 2025

Abate by

Aug 14, 2025

Penalty

Initial $9,268 · Current $9,268

Hazardous substances 9000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.1053(j)(1): The employer did not include respirable crystalline silica in the program established to comply with the hazard communication standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200):    On or about March 3, 2025, the employer failed to ensure that each employee exposed to respirable crystalline silica was trained on the health hazards associated with exposure to respirable crystalline silica, the specific tasks in the workplace that could result in exposure to respirable crystalline silica, specific measures that have been implemented to protect employees, and the purpose of the medical surveillance program.