Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation · South Carolina

Columbia Energy Center

Gaston, SC · ~26 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.6
Avg TCR
1.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Columbia Energy Center runs at 50% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation workplace, earning a grade A.

Columbia Energy Center: 0.6 TCR = 50% of Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation BLS 1.2 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Columbia Energy Center safety composite

Columbia Energy Center scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 84% 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

71/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 0.6 per 100 workers

Safer than 84% of industry peers

DART rate
C 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 71% 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%).

Columbia Energy Center held a steady TCR band

Columbia Energy Center's TCR held near 0.0 from 0.0 in 2019 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 3.6 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2019=0.0 · 2020=0.0 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=3.6 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 221112 · Gaston, SC AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 0.6 · 50% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #6/8
  • PHOTO Westbrook Energy Cen…
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 1 inj
  • SIZE ~26 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Westbrook Energy Center (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Columbia Energy Center in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Columbia Energy Center averages 0.6 TCR (50% of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation BLS benchmark).

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

Columbia Energy Center TCR series: 2019=0 · 2020=0 · 2021=0 · 2022=0 · 2023=3.6 · 2024=0 · BLS 1.2

Where Columbia Energy Center falls in its industry

846 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Gen establishments

Safer than 84% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to South Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #6 safest of 8 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Gen employers in South Carolina.

Columbia Energy Center (26 employees, TCR 0.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 59 employees and a TCR of 1.5 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 0200400600800 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Columbia Energy Center
Columbia Energy Center (26 employees, TCR 0.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 59 employees and a TCR of 1.5

Columbia Energy Center has fewer employees than the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.5. 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 3.6 3.6 1 0 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

221112 · SC · Gaston

846 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,610 rated employers in South Carolina with headcount on file · 32 employers in Gaston, SC · 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 Westbrook Energy Center 0.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Monroe Power Plant 0.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR NAES : Sandy Creek 0.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Cliffside Steam Station 0.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Walther Farms SC 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE Simpsonville Operations Center 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE Savage Rd. Crew Quarters 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sossamon Construction Co., Inc. 26 FTE
CITY-NEAR Private Residence Gaston SC 861 FTE
CITY-NEAR Alpek Polyester USA, LLC-Columbia Site 500 FTE
CITY-NEAR DAK Americas, LLC-Columbia Site 495 FTE
CITY-NEAR Stier Supply Co. 286 FTE
NAT-TCR CORMETECH - Durham Manufacturing Facility 0.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Herzog Contracting Corp - HSR Constructors 0.6 TCR
NAT-TCR DesignTex Maine 0.6 TCR
NAT-TCR LVC Window Blinds, Inc. 0.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE 828 - Splut, Inc. 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE Ferguson Fire & Fabrication Inc: CO Commerce City-5350 Newport St 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE Bosma Ag Enterprises 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE PMA Mt Airy 26 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. 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.