SUGARCREEK, OH —
OSHA Inspection: PALLET DISTRIBUTORS INC.
Referral inspection · Health discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a referral health inspection of PALLET DISTRIBUTORS INC. in 10143 COPPERHEAD ROAD NW, SUGARCREEK, OH 44681 (NAICS 321920). OSHA activity number 345614853.
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employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.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 Pallet Distributors INC. — free
Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for Pallet Distributors INC. is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- PALLET DISTRIBUTORS INC.
- Site address
- 10143 COPPERHEAD ROAD NW
- City
- SUGARCREEK
- State
- OH
- ZIP
- 44681
- Mailing
- 10143 COPPERHEAD ROAD NW, SUGARCREEK, OH 44681
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Referral (C)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Health
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 321920
- Employees
- 104
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
5 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.95 B01
- Issued
- Dec 15, 2021
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 2022
- Penalty
- Initial $8,778 · Current $3,511 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1):When employees are subjected to sound exceeding those listed in Table G-16, feasible administrative or engineering controls shall be utilized. If such controls fail to reduce sound levels within the levels of Table G-16, personal protective equipment shall be provided and used to reduce sound levels within the levels of the table. a. The employer did not implement feasible administrative or engineering controls to reduce sound levels within the levels of Table -G16 in the cut shop. Furthermore, the employer provided hearing protection but did not require hearing protection to be worn by employees to reduce sound levels. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 196.6% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.8 dBA during the 402 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 78 minutes not sampled. b. The employer did not implement feasible administrative or engineering controls to reduce sound levels within the levels of Table -G16 in the cut shop. Furthermore, the employer provided hearing protection but did not require hearing protection to be worn by employees to reduce sound levels. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 142.1% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 92.5 dBA during the 392 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 88 minutes not sampled. c. The employer did not implement feasible administrative or engineering controls to reduce sound levels within the levels of Table -G16 in the cut shop. Furthermore, the employer provided hearing protection but did not require hearing protection to be worn by employees. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 181.2% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.2 dBA during the 375 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 105 minutes not sampled. d. The employer did not implement feasible administrative or engineering controls to reduce sound levels within the levels of Table -G16 in the cut shop. Furthermore, the employer provided hearing protection but did not require hearing protection to be worn by employees to reduce sound levels. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 230.5% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 96 dBA during the 369 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 111 minutes not sampled. e. The employer did not implement feasible administrative or engineering controls to reduce sound levels within the levels of Table -G16 in the recycle shop. Furthermore, the employer provided hearing protection but did not require hearing protection to be worn by employees to reduce sound levels. An employee working in the recycle shop was exposed to continuous noise at 180.5% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.2 dBA during the 317 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 163 minutes not sampled.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $3511.2
- — Z (S) $8778
1910.95 D01
- Issued
- Dec 15, 2021
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 2022
- Penalty
- Initial $8,778 · Current $3,511 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.95(d)(1):When information indicates that any employee's exposure may equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels, the employer shall develop and implement a monitoring program. a. The employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program for employees working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 196.6% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.8 dBA during the 402 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 78 minutes not sampled. b. The employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program for employees working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 142.1% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 92.5 dBA during the 392 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 88 minutes not sampled. c. The employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program for employees working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 135% (80 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 85 dBA . The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 92.1 dBA during the 381 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 99 minutes not sampled. d. The employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program for employees working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 181.2% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.2 dBA during the 375 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 105 minutes not sampled. e. The employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program for employees working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 230.5% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 96 dBA during the 369 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 111 minutes not sampled. f. The employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program for employees working in the pallet shop. An employee working in the pallet shop was exposed to continuous noise at 112% (80 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 85 dBA . The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 88.7 dBA during the 361 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 119 minutes not sampled. g. The employer did not develop and implement a monitoring program for employees working in the recycle shop. An employee working in the recycle shop was exposed to continuous noise at 180.5% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.2 dBA during the 317 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 163 minutes not sampled.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $3511.2
- — Z (S) $8778
1910.95 G01
- Issued
- Dec 15, 2021
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 2022
- Penalty
- Initial $8,778 · Current $3,511 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.95(g)(1):The employer shall establish and maintain an audiometric testing program as provided in this paragraph by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels. a. The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program for employees working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 196.6% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.8 dBA during the 402 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 78 minutes not sampled. b. The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program for employees working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 142.1% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 92.5 dBA during the 392 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 88 minutes not sampled. c. The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program for employees working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 135% (80 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 85 dBA . The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 92.1 dBA during the 381 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 99 minutes not sampled. d. The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program for employees working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 181.2% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.2 dBA during the 375 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 105 minutes not sampled. e. The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program for employees working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 230.5% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 96 dBA during the 369 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 111 minutes not sampled. f. The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program for employees working in the pallet shop. An employee working in the pallet shop was exposed to continuous noise at 112% (80 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 85 dBA . The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 88.7 dBA during the 361 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 119 minutes not sampled. g. The employer did not establish and maintain an audiometric testing program for employees working in the recycle shop. An employee working in the recycle shop was exposed to continuous noise at 180.5% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.2 dBA during the 317 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 163 minutes not sampled.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $3511.2
- — Z (S) $8778
1910.95 I02
- Issued
- Dec 15, 2021
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 2022
- Penalty
- Initial $8,778 · Current $3,511 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.95(i)(2): Employers shall ensure that hearing protectors are worn: 29 CFR 1910.95(i)(2)(i):By an employee who is required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section to wear personal protective equipment; The employer did not require employees exposed to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 90 decibels or greater to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) in the form of hearing protection. a. The employer provided hearing protection but did not require hearing protection be worn by employees. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 196.6% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.8 dBA during the 402 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 78 minutes not sampled. b. The employer provided hearing protection but did not require hearing protection be worn by employees. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 142.1% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 92.5 dBA during the 392 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 88 minutes not sampled. c. The employer provided hearing protection but did not require hearing protection be worn by employees. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 181.2% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.2 dBA during the 375 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 105 minutes not sampled. d. The employer provided hearing protection but did not require hearing protection be worn by employees. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 230.5% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceededthe permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 96 dBA during the 369 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 111 minutes not sampled. e. The employer provided hearing protection but did not require hearing protection be worn by employees. An employee working in the recycle shop was exposed to continuous noise at 180.5% (90 threhold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.2 dBA during the 317 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 163 minutes not sampled.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $3511.2
- — Z (S) $8778
1910.95 K01
- Issued
- Dec 15, 2021
- Abate by
- Feb 18, 2022
- Penalty
- Initial $8,778 · Current $3,511 Reduced
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.95(k)(1):The employer shall train each employee who is exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels in accordance with the requirements of this section. The employer shall institute a training program and ensure employee participation in the program. a. The employer did not institute a training program and train each employee working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 196.6% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.8 dBA during the 402 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 78 minutes not sampled. b. The employer did not institute a training program and train each employee working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 142.1% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 92.5 dBA during the 392 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 88 minutes not sampled. c. The employer did not institute a training program and train each employee working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 135% (80 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 85 dBA . The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 92.1 dBA during the 381 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 99 minutes not sampled. d. The employer did not institute a training program and train each employee working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 181.2% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.2 dBA during the 375 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 105 minutes not sampled. e. The employer did not institute a training program and train each employee working in the cut shop. An employee working in the cut shop was exposed to continuous noise at 230.5% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 96 dBA during the 369 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 111 minutes not sampled. f. The employer did not institute a training program and train each employee working in the pallet shop. An employee working in the pallet shop was exposed to continuous noise at 112% (80 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 85 dBA . The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 88.7 dBA during the 361 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 119 minutes not sampled. g. The employer did not institute a training program and train each employee working in the recycle shop. An employee working in the recycle shop was exposed to continuous noise at 180.5% (90 threshold) on October 26, 2021 which exceeded the the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100% and action limit (AL) of 50 %, an 8-hour TWA (time weighted average) sound level of 90 dBA and 85 dBA respectively. The employee's 8-hour TWA sound level was 94.2 dBA during the 317 minute sampling period. Time weighted average includes a zero increment for the 163 minutes not sampled.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $3511.2
- — Z (S) $8778
More inspections at Pallet Distributors INC.
Feb 7, 2025
SUGARCREEK, OH
Jan 14, 2025
HOLMESVILLE, OH
Aug 7, 2024
BYESVILLE, OH
Dec 12, 2023
SUGARCREEK, OH
Apr 12, 2022
SUGARCREEK, OH
View Pallet Distributors INC.'s full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 321920)
Jul 16, 2026
Elijah Wholesale, LLC. · LAKELAND, FL
Jul 16, 2026
Cantarero Pallets, INC. · SOUTH HOLLAND, IL
Jul 15, 2026
Pallets Acquisition LLC · DECATUR, GA
Jul 14, 2026
Specwood Products, INC. · CLANTON, AL
Jul 10, 2026
Kelley Wood Products, INC. · FITCHBURG, MA
More inspections in OH
Jul 17, 2026
Teknol, INC. · DAYTON, OH
Jul 16, 2026
Lippert · PAYNE, OH
Jul 16, 2026
Provia · SUGARCREEK, OH
Jul 16, 2026
Greenacres Foundation · CINCINNATI, OH
Jul 16, 2026
Whirlaway Corporation · WELLINGTON, OH
Source
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 345614853.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.