Railroad ties (i.e., bridge, cross, switch) treating · Pennsylvania

Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc.

Needmore, PA · ~34 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
6.6
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc. runs at 200% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Railroad ties (i.e., bridge, cross, switch) treating workplace, earning a grade D.

Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc.: 6.6 TCR = 200% of Railroad ties (i.e., bridge, cross, switch) treating BLS 3.3 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc. safety composite

Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc. scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 16%), 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

28/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 6.59 per 100 workers

Safer than 25% of industry peers

DART rate
F 5.99 per 100 workers

Safer than 16% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc.: 0.0 → 6.0 TCR

Peak year 2018 @ 11.8 TCR · DART/TCR 0.91× in 2024

Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc.'s TCR rose 6.0 from 0.0 in 2016 to 6.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2018 at 11.8 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.91× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 321114 · Needmore, PA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 6.6 · 200% of ind

  • DART 6.0 DART
  • RANK #8/10
  • PHOTO Baldwin Pole & Pilin…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 14 inj
  • SIZE ~34 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Baldwin Pole & Piling, Inc. (0.1 TCR gap)

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

Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc. in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc. averages 6.6 TCR (200% of the Railroad ties (i.e., bridge, cross, switch) treating BLS benchmark).

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

Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc. TCR series: 2016=0 · 2017=2.8 · 2018=11.8 · 2019=11.8 · 2020=8.4 · 2021=2.9 · 2022=6.1 · 2023=9.5 · 2024=6 · BLS 3.3

Where Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc. falls in its industry

183 Railroad ties (i.e., bridge, c establishments

Safer than 25% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Pennsylvania alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #8 safest of 10 Railroad ties (i.e., bridge, c employers in Pennsylvania.

Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc. (34 employees, TCR 6.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 48 employees and a TCR of 4.3 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 050100150 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc.
Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc. (34 employees, TCR 6.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 48 employees and a TCR of 4.3

Mellott Wood Preserving Co., Inc. has fewer employees than the Railroad ties (i.e., bridge, cross, swit median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.3. 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 6.0 6.0 2 0 0
2023 9.5 6.3 2 1 0
2022 6.1 3.1 1 1 0
2021 2.9 2.9 1 0 0
2020 8.4 0.0 1 2 0
2019 11.8 5.9 3 1 0
2018 11.8 5.9 3 1 0
2017 2.8 2.8 1 0 0
2016 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

321114 · PA · Needmore

183 Railroad ties (i.e., bridge, cross, switch) treating employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,692 rated employers in Pennsylvania with headcount on file · 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 Baldwin Pole & Piling, Inc. 6.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR MS-SB-MOSHEIM 6.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR FH-SB-FAIRLESS HILLS 6.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR North Bend AWW 6.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE Kaolin Mushroom Farms - West Grove Facility 34 FTE
STATE-SIZE George Didden Greenhouse 34 FTE
STATE-SIZE Kreider Farms - Dairy 34 FTE
STATE-SIZE R.W. Sauder Inc 34 FTE
NAT-TCR Western Forge & Flange Company, LLC. 6.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Metropolitan Associates 6.6 TCR
NAT-TCR The Fresh Market 120 6.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Capitol Lakes 6.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Superior Shot Peening-Luthe 34 FTE
NAT-SIZE Pacific Sanitation Inc. 34 FTE
NAT-SIZE IAS Monticello 34 FTE
NAT-SIZE RUSM 34 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, 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.