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

Key Line Construction Inc

Myrtle Point, OR · ~117 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
1.9
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Key Line Construction Inc runs at 68% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Utility line (i.e., communication, electric power), construction workplace, earning a grade B.

Key Line Construction Inc: 1.9 TCR = 68% of Utility line (i.e., communication, electric power), construction BLS 2.8 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Key Line Construction Inc safety composite

Key Line Construction Inc scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 78% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (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

61/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 1.89 per 100 workers

Safer than 51% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 78% 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

−0.6

2022→2024

Key Line Construction Inc injury rate improved

Key Line Construction Inc's TCR fell 0.6 from 2.2 in 2022 to 1.6 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 2.2 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2022=2.2 · 2023=1.9 · 2024=1.6

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 237130 · Myrtle Point, OR AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade B · TCR 1.9 · 68% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #14/28
  • PHOTO Toney Construction I…
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 6 inj
  • SIZE ~117 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Toney Construction Inc. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Key Line Construction Inc in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Key Line Construction Inc averages 1.9 TCR (68% 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

Key Line Construction Inc TCR series: 2022=2.2 · 2023=1.9 · 2024=1.6 · BLS 2.8

Where Key Line Construction Inc falls in its industry

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

Safer than 51% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Oregon alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #14 safest of 28 Utility line (i.e., communicat employers in Oregon.

Key Line Construction Inc (117 employees, TCR 1.9) 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 0100200300400500 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Key Line Construction Inc
Key Line Construction Inc (117 employees, TCR 1.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 74 employees and a TCR of 2.0

Key Line Construction Inc has more employees than the Utility line (i.e., communication, elect median and a lower 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
2024 1.6 0.0 2 0 0
2023 1.9 1.0 2 0 0
2022 2.2 0.0 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

237130 · OR · Myrtle Point

1,605 Utility line (i.e., communication, electric power), construction employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 8,031 rated employers in Oregon with headcount on file · 5 employers in Myrtle Point, OR · 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 Toney Construction Inc. 1.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR FT011 - Fiber Tech - Fred - Shannon Dr 1.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Northeast Services 1.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Power Oak Grove 1.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE Naumes, Inc. - Orchards & Vineyards 117 FTE
STATE-SIZE Wilsonville Production 117 FTE
STATE-SIZE Milwaukie Stanley Infrastructure 117 FTE
STATE-SIZE 5850-1-REJUVEN MFG CORP RJ NICOLAI 117 FTE
CITY-NEAR Myrtle Point School District 41 81 FTE
CITY-NEAR City of Myrtle Point 48 FTE
CITY-NEAR McKay's Market Myrtle Point #7 43 FTE
CITY-NEAR North Bend Medical Center Myrtle Point 5 FTE
NAT-TCR Boyett Construction Inc. 1.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Benchemark Printing Inc 1.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Saver Group,Inc dba Olive Hill Save-A-Lot 1.9 TCR
NAT-TCR 49-Usf-Olf North Frederick 1.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE Laketown Electric Corporation 117 FTE
NAT-SIZE Ridgeview Terrace of Life Care 117 FTE
NAT-SIZE Donna 117 FTE
NAT-SIZE Lakeshore Manor Nursing & Rehab 117 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.