Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tube), nonrigid plastics, manufacturing · Virginia

Champion Window of Richmond

Ashland, VA · ~20 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
12.1
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Champion Window of Richmond runs at 367% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tube), nonrigid plastics, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade F.

Champion Window of Richmond: 12.1 TCR = 367% of Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tube), nonrigid plastics, manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Champion Window of Richmond safety composite

Champion Window of Richmond scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 84% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 3%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

D

43/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 12.12 per 100 workers

Safer than 3% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 84% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

TCR Δ

−11.2

2016→2024

Champion Window of Richmond injury rate improved

Champion Window of Richmond's TCR fell 11.2 from 22.5 in 2016 to 11.4 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2016 at 22.5 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=22.5 · 2017=12.1 · 2023=2.5 · 2024=11.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 326121 · Ashland, VA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 12.1 · 367% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #6/6
  • PHOTO Champion Window of K…
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 8 inj
  • SIZE ~20 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Champion Window of Kansas City (0.3 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · Virginia employers → · Look up another →

Champion Window of Richmond in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows Champion Window of Richmond averages 12.1 TCR (367% of the Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tube), nonrigid plastics, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Champion Window of Richmond TCR series: 2016=22.5 · 2017=12.1 · 2023=2.5 · 2024=11.4 · BLS 3.3

Where Champion Window of Richmond falls in its industry

202 Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tub establishments

Safer than 3% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Virginia alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #6 safest of 6 Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tub employers in Virginia.

Champion Window of Richmond (20 employees, TCR 12.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 71 employees and a TCR of 3.7 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 050100150200250 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Champion Window of Richmond
Champion Window of Richmond (20 employees, TCR 12.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 71 employees and a TCR of 3.7

Champion Window of Richmond has fewer employees than the Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tube), nonrig median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.7. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 11.4 0.0 1 0 0
2023 2.5 0.0 2 0 0
2017 12.1 12.1 2 0 0
2016 22.5 22.5 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

326121 · VA · Ashland

202 Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tube), nonrigid plastics, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 12,673 rated employers in Virginia with headcount on file · 134 employers in Ashland, VA · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR Champion Window of Kansas City 11.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR 6681_15494 12.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Golden 11.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR 1140_2394 10.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE Richmond Hatchery 20 FTE
STATE-SIZE Richmond Growout 20 FTE
STATE-SIZE NAES : Gordonsville 20 FTE
STATE-SIZE Gordonsville 20 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon Transportation Services : RIC5 1,187 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon.com Services LLC - RIC5 1,077 FTE
CITY-NEAR 1730 RNDC-ASHLAND 486 FTE
CITY-NEAR 4609-1730 468 FTE
NAT-TCR Tall Pine Logistics LLC 12.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Arden Courts of Glen Ellyn 12.1 TCR
NAT-TCR American House - Sterling Meadows 12.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Pacifica Peoria LLC 12.1 TCR
NAT-SIZE Wccs-Mchs-640 Old Cain Ridge Road 20 FTE
NAT-SIZE Weelborg Chevrolet of Glencoe, LLC 20 FTE
NAT-SIZE Eagle Eye Farms Blackfoot 20 FTE
NAT-SIZE American Dismantling LLC. 20 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2024, 2023, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.