Distribution of electric power · Pennsylvania

Coatesville Service Building

Coatesville, PA · ~30 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
3.0
Avg TCR
1.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Coatesville Service Building runs at 248% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Distribution of electric power workplace, earning a grade F.

Coatesville Service Building: 3.0 TCR = 248% of Distribution of electric power BLS 1.2 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Coatesville Service Building safety composite

Coatesville Service Building scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 26%), 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

39/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 2.97 per 100 workers

Safer than 42% of industry peers

DART rate
F 2.82 per 100 workers

Safer than 26% 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%).

TCR Δ

−3.2

2016→2019

Coatesville Service Building injury rate improved

Coatesville Service Building's TCR fell 3.2 from 6.0 in 2016 to 2.8 in 2019. Peak filing year was 2016 at 6.0 TCR. In 2019, DART was 0.95× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=6.0 · 2017=3.0 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=2.8

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 221122 · Coatesville, PA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 3.0 · 248% of ind

  • DART 2.8 DART
  • RANK #45/58
  • PHOTO Central Rural Electr…
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 4 inj
  • SIZE ~30 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Central Rural Electric Cooperative (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Coatesville Service Building in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Coatesville Service Building averages 3.0 TCR (248% 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

Coatesville Service Building TCR series: 2016=6 · 2017=3 · 2018=0 · 2019=2.8 · BLS 1.2

Where Coatesville Service Building falls in its industry

2,958 Distribution of electric power establishments

Safer than 42% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Pennsylvania alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #45 safest of 58 Distribution of electric power employers in Pennsylvania.

Coatesville Service Building (30 employees, TCR 3.0) 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 Coatesville Service Building
Coatesville Service Building (30 employees, TCR 3.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 2.5

Coatesville Service Building has fewer employees than the Distribution of electric power median and a higher 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
2019 2.8 2.8 1 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 3.0 3.0 1 0 0
2016 6.0 3.0 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

221122 · PA · Coatesville

2,958 Distribution of electric power employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,692 rated employers in Pennsylvania with headcount on file · 46 employers in Coatesville, PA · 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 Central Rural Electric Cooperative 3.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR GLENS FALLS CUSTOMER SERV CTR-NY07 3.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Tuscaloosa Snow Mills Complex 3.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Rosebud Electric Cooperative 3.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE Esbenshade Maytown 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE BJE Poultry 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE Superior Energy Resources, LLC 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE Panda Patriot, LLC 30 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cleveland-Cliffs Coatesville 689 FTE
CITY-NEAR ArcelorMittal Coatesville 683 FTE
CITY-NEAR ArcelorMittal Coatesville (EIN 20-0653500) 621 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lockheed Martin Corporation US PA Coatesville 110 Stewart (5265) 442 FTE
NAT-TCR Nc-Neg 940 3.0 TCR
NAT-TCR State Farm Dunwoody GA 3.0 TCR
NAT-TCR City of Chicago Dept of Fleet and Facility Management - 121 N. La Salle St. 3.0 TCR
NAT-TCR DBA Ashley Furniture Homestores- Hawthorne 3.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE 4769-829-Pottery Barn 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE 4769-828-Pottery Barn 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE 4769-784-Pottery Barn Kids 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE 1855-KSWIC014 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: 2019, 2018, 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.