Nonhazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities (except combustors, incinerators, landfills, sewer systems, · Maryland

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore

Baltimore, MD · ~37 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
7.6
Avg TCR
2.6
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore runs at 292% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Nonhazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities (except combustors, incinerators, landfills, sewer systems, workplace, earning a grade F.

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore: 7.6 TCR = 292% of Nonhazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities (except combustors, incinerators, landfills, sewer systems, BLS 2.6 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore safety composite

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 79% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 29%), 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

52/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 7.58 per 100 workers

Safer than 29% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 79% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 52% 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

−1.2

2016→2021

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore injury rate improved

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore's TCR fell 1.2 from 6.8 in 2016 to 5.6 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2020 at 11.8 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=6.8 · 2018=7.5 · 2019=6.1 · 2020=11.8 · 2021=5.6

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 562219 · Baltimore, MD ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 7.6 · 292% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK P29
  • PHOTO Zero Waste
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 12 inj
  • SIZE ~37 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Zero Waste (0.2 TCR gap)

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

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore averages 7.6 TCR (292% of the Nonhazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities (except combustors, incinerators, landfills, sewer systems, BLS benchmark).

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

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore TCR series: 2016=6.8 · 2018=7.5 · 2019=6.1 · 2020=11.8 · 2021=5.6 · BLS 2.6

Where Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore falls in its industry

171 Nonhazardous waste treatment a establishments

Safer than 29% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers
Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore (37 employees, TCR 7.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 45 employees and a TCR of 4.9 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 0100200300400 010203040 Average employees Total Case Rate Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore
Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore (37 employees, TCR 7.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 45 employees and a TCR of 4.9

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Baltimore has fewer employees than the Nonhazardous waste treatment and disposa median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.9. 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
2021 5.6 0.0 2 0 0
2020 11.8 3.0 4 0 0
2019 6.1 3.0 2 0 0
2018 7.5 3.8 2 0 0
2016 6.8 6.8 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

562219 · MD · Baltimore

171 Nonhazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities (except combustors, incinerators, landfills, sewer systems, employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,213 rated employers in Maryland with headcount on file · 1,031 employers in Baltimore, MD · 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 Zero Waste 7.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR LRS - North Branch 7.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Stericycle - Beaver Dam,KY 7.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Dahl and Dahl, Inc. 7.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE CFM Engineering 37 FTE
STATE-SIZE Foulger Pratt Contracting, LLC 37 FTE
STATE-SIZE OAK CONTRACTING LLC 37 FTE
STATE-SIZE 434 37 FTE
CITY-NEAR Johns Hopkins Hospital 12,523 FTE
CITY-NEAR University of Maryland Medical Center 7,980 FTE
CITY-NEAR Sinai Hospital of Baltimore 7,770 FTE
CITY-NEAR NGMS-T340 6,180 FTE
NAT-TCR EMPSD, Inc. dba EmpireWorks 7.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Sparton 7.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Brookdale Edina 7.6 TCR
NAT-TCR SMCTD-South Base Bus Transportation 7.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. Walton 37 FTE
NAT-SIZE Protection Systems, LLC 37 FTE
NAT-SIZE Almo Distributing Wisconsin, Inc. 37 FTE
NAT-SIZE HHI 37 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: 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 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.