General freight trucking, long-distance, truckload (TL) · Pennsylvania

ECM Transport-Pittsburgh

Cheswick, PA · ~130 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
3.8
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

ECM Transport-Pittsburgh runs at 85% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical General freight trucking, long-distance, truckload (TL) workplace, earning a grade C.

ECM Transport-Pittsburgh: 3.8 TCR = 85% of General freight trucking, long-distance, truckload (TL) BLS 4.5 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

ECM Transport-Pittsburgh safety composite

ECM Transport-Pittsburgh scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 53% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 38%), 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

42/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 3.82 per 100 workers

Safer than 38% of industry peers

DART rate
D 2.89 per 100 workers

Safer than 38% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 53% 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

−2.9

2017→2020

ECM Transport-Pittsburgh injury rate improved

ECM Transport-Pittsburgh's TCR fell 2.9 from 6.6 in 2017 to 3.7 in 2020. Peak filing year was 2017 at 6.6 TCR. In 2020, DART was 0.76× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=6.6 · 2018=3.1 · 2019=1.8 · 2020=3.7

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 484121 · Cheswick, PA AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade C · TCR 3.8 · 85% of ind

  • DART 2.9 DART
  • RANK #95/172
  • PHOTO TTI- Bayport NTS
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 29 inj
  • SIZE ~130 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: TTI- Bayport NTS (0.0 TCR gap)

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

ECM Transport-Pittsburgh in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows ECM Transport-Pittsburgh averages 3.8 TCR (85% of the General freight trucking, long-distance, truckload (TL) BLS benchmark).

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

ECM Transport-Pittsburgh TCR series: 2017=6.6 · 2018=3.1 · 2019=1.8 · 2020=3.7 · BLS 4.5

Where ECM Transport-Pittsburgh falls in its industry

3,252 General freight trucking, long establishments

Safer than 38% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Pennsylvania alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #95 safest of 172 General freight trucking, long employers in Pennsylvania.

ECM Transport-Pittsburgh (130 employees, TCR 3.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 61 employees and a TCR of 3.0 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 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,000 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate ECM Transport-Pittsburgh
ECM Transport-Pittsburgh (130 employees, TCR 3.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 61 employees and a TCR of 3.0

ECM Transport-Pittsburgh has more employees than the General freight trucking, long-distance, median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.0. 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
2020 3.7 2.9 9 0 0
2019 1.8 1.8 3 0 0
2018 3.1 2.6 6 0 0
2017 6.6 1.8 11 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

484121 · PA · Cheswick

3,252 General freight trucking, long-distance, truckload (TL) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,692 rated employers in Pennsylvania with headcount on file · 30 employers in Cheswick, 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 TTI- Bayport NTS 3.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR DART TRUCKING INC., NORTH LIMA, OH 3.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR EAU CLAIRE OTR TRANSPORTATION - 3049 3.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Denton, TX 3.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE Herbruck's of Pennsylvania, LLC 130 FTE
STATE-SIZE Fresh Food Manufacturing (M003) 130 FTE
STATE-SIZE EAC 6270 NORTHEAST PAVING COMPANY 130 FTE
STATE-SIZE TransCore - T0760 - Harrisburg 130 FTE
CITY-NEAR Curtiss Wright - Cheswick Facility 721 FTE
CITY-NEAR HarmarVillage Care Center 229 FTE
CITY-NEAR Glass Technology Center 219 FTE
CITY-NEAR Harmar Village Care Center 187 FTE
NAT-TCR 0000000118 Quickchek Food Store 3.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Pavestone - TUSB 3.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Tabloid Graphic Services 3.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Center City 3.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Walker Spring & Stamping 130 FTE
NAT-SIZE Heritage Harbour Health and Rehabilitation Center 130 FTE
NAT-SIZE Turner at Westlake Chemical Corp. Longview TX 130 FTE
NAT-SIZE 2512-Boone, IA 130 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: 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.