Utility line (i.e., communication, electric power), construction · Tennessee

Electric Power Board of Chattanooga

Chattanooga, TN · ~658 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
3.2
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Electric Power Board of Chattanooga runs at 114% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Utility line (i.e., communication, electric power), construction workplace, earning a grade C.

Electric Power Board of Chattanooga: 3.2 TCR = 114% of Utility line (i.e., communication, electric power), construction BLS 2.8 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Electric Power Board of Chattanooga safety composite

Electric Power Board of Chattanooga scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 52% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 22%), 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).

F

34/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 3.2 per 100 workers

Safer than 34% of industry peers

DART rate
F 2.8 per 100 workers

Safer than 22% 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%).

Electric Power Board of Chattanooga held a steady TCR band

Electric Power Board of Chattanooga's TCR held near 0.2 from 3.9 in 2016 to 3.7 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2016 at 3.9 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0.87× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=3.9 · 2017=3.1 · 2018=2.4 · 2019=3.3 · 2020=2.8 · 2021=3.7

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 237130 · Chattanooga, TN ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade C · TCR 3.2 · 114% of ind

  • DART 2.8 DART
  • RANK #13/26
  • PHOTO NA-US-NY-Elmsford-Ri…
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 134 inj
  • SIZE ~658 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: NA-US-NY-Elmsford-Ridgewood Drive (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Electric Power Board of Chattanooga in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Electric Power Board of Chattanooga averages 3.2 TCR (114% of the Utility line (i.e., communication, electric power), construction BLS benchmark).

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

Electric Power Board of Chattanooga TCR series: 2016=3.9 · 2017=3.1 · 2018=2.4 · 2019=3.3 · 2020=2.8 · 2021=3.7 · BLS 2.8

Where Electric Power Board of Chattanooga falls in its industry

1,605 Utility line (i.e., communicat establishments

Safer than 34% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Tennessee alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #13 safest of 26 Utility line (i.e., communicat employers in Tennessee.

Electric Power Board of Chattanooga (658 employees, TCR 3.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 74 employees and a TCR of 2.0 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 0200400600800 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Electric Power Board of Chattanooga
Electric Power Board of Chattanooga (658 employees, TCR 3.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 74 employees and a TCR of 2.0

Electric Power Board of Chattanooga has more employees than the Utility line (i.e., communication, elect median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.0. 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
2021 3.7 2.8 24 0 0
2020 2.8 2.3 22 0 0
2019 3.3 1.4 21 0 0
2018 2.4 1.2 18 1 0
2017 3.1 2.1 23 1 0
2016 3.9 2.4 26 2 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

237130 · TN · Chattanooga

1,605 Utility line (i.e., communication, electric power), construction employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 10,743 rated employers in Tennessee with headcount on file · 695 employers in Chattanooga, TN · 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 NA-US-NY-Elmsford-Ridgewood Drive 3.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Directline Communications Inc. 3.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Bristol Tennessee Essential Services 3.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Michels Power Inc-NM-Albuquerque 3.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE Jostens 658 FTE
STATE-SIZE FedEx 3101 TCHULAHOMA RD 659 FTE
STATE-SIZE 1969-CMC1 657 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sumiriko TN-Tazewell 656 FTE
CITY-NEAR CHATTANOOGA COKE 8,650 FTE
CITY-NEAR CHATTANOOGA FOOD 8,650 FTE
CITY-NEAR USXpress 7,385 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cardiology GB 6,606 FTE
NAT-TCR E&I Engineering USA Corp 3.2 TCR
NAT-TCR L. Martone & Sons, Inc. 3.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Administration 3.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Keeland & Corder Painting, LLC 3.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Sharp Mesa Vista Hospital 658 FTE
NAT-SIZE Attentive Care of Albany, Inc. 658 FTE
NAT-SIZE Curtis-Maruyasu America, Inc. 658 FTE
NAT-SIZE Ponca City Refinery 658 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, 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.