Distribution of electric power · Illinois

Chicago Loop Tech

Chicago, IL · ~30 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
1.6
Avg TCR
1.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Chicago Loop Tech runs at 138% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Distribution of electric power workplace, earning a grade D.

Chicago Loop Tech: 1.6 TCR = 138% of Distribution of electric power BLS 1.2 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Chicago Loop Tech safety composite

Chicago Loop Tech scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 79% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 51%), 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).

C

68/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 1.65 per 100 workers

Safer than 68% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 79% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% 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%).

Chicago Loop Tech held a steady TCR band

Chicago Loop Tech's TCR held near 0.0 from 0.0 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 6.2 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=0.0 · 2017=0.0 · 2018=2.9 · 2019=5.8 · 2020=0.0 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=6.2 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 221122 · Chicago, IL ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 1.6 · 138% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #31/97
  • PHOTO SCRSC Scranton Servi…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 3 inj
  • SIZE ~30 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: SCRSC Scranton Service Center (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Chicago Loop Tech in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Chicago Loop Tech averages 1.6 TCR (138% of the Distribution of electric power BLS benchmark).

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

Chicago Loop Tech TCR series: 2016=0 · 2017=0 · 2018=2.9 · 2019=5.8 · 2020=0 · 2021=0 · 2022=0 · 2023=6.2 · 2024=0 · BLS 1.2

Where Chicago Loop Tech falls in its industry

2,958 Distribution of electric power establishments

Safer than 68% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Illinois alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #31 safest of 97 Distribution of electric power employers in Illinois.

Chicago Loop Tech (30 employees, TCR 1.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 2.5 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 05001,0001,5002,000 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Chicago Loop Tech
Chicago Loop Tech (30 employees, TCR 1.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 2.5

Chicago Loop Tech has fewer employees than the Distribution of electric power median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.5. 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 6.2 6.2 0 2 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 5.8 5.8 2 0 0
2018 2.9 2.9 1 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2016 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

221122 · IL · Chicago

2,958 Distribution of electric power employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,804 rated employers in Illinois with headcount on file · 2,934 employers in Chicago, IL · 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 SCRSC Scranton Service Center 1.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Greenville SC 1.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR CenterPoint Energy - Baytown Service Center 1.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR ARLINGTON SERVICE CENTER 1.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Odell Fire 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE AMEREN ILLINOIS - Northern N - IL Common Ops 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE Spoon River Electric Cooperative, Inc. 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE City of Chicago - Department of Water Management - 4933 S Western Ave 30 FTE
CITY-NEAR Chicago Public Schools 49,500 FTE
CITY-NEAR Chicago/Corporate 18,831 FTE
CITY-NEAR University of Illinois at Chicago 13,092 FTE
CITY-NEAR University Health Service UIC UIC Campus 12,732 FTE
NAT-TCR Plant IT 1.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Snap-on Power Tools, Inc. 1.6 TCR
NAT-TCR ACT Fabrication, Inc. (Houston) 1.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Performance Firestop, Inc. 1.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE M. Potteiger Inc. 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE LRK 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE SJF Material Handling Inc 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE TAL 30 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, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.

Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.