Distribution of electric power · Pennsylvania

Metropolitan Edison Company

Reading, PA · ~567 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
2.1
Avg TCR
1.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Metropolitan Edison Company runs at 175% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Distribution of electric power workplace, earning a grade D.

Metropolitan Edison Company: 2.1 TCR = 175% of Distribution of electric power BLS 1.2 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Metropolitan Edison Company safety composite

Metropolitan Edison Company scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 57% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 44%), 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

51/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 2.1 per 100 workers

Safer than 57% of industry peers

DART rate
D 1.37 per 100 workers

Safer than 44% 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

Metropolitan Edison Company: 0.3 → 2.7 TCR

Peak year 2023 @ 5.3 TCR · DART/TCR 0.65× in 2024

Metropolitan Edison Company's TCR rose 2.4 from 0.3 in 2016 to 2.7 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 5.3 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.65× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 221122 · Reading, PA ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade D · TCR 2.1 · 175% of ind

  • DART 1.4 DART
  • RANK #35/58
  • PHOTO ACE- Bridgeton Opera…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 97 inj
  • SIZE ~567 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: ACE- Bridgeton Operations (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Metropolitan Edison Company in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Metropolitan Edison Company averages 2.1 TCR (175% of the Distribution of electric power BLS benchmark).

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

Metropolitan Edison Company TCR series: 2016=0.3 · 2017=2.6 · 2018=1.9 · 2019=1.2 · 2020=1.3 · 2021=2 · 2022=1.8 · 2023=5.3 · 2024=2.7 · BLS 1.2

Where Metropolitan Edison Company falls in its industry

2,958 Distribution of electric power establishments

Safer than 57% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Pennsylvania alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #35 safest of 58 Distribution of electric power employers in Pennsylvania.

Metropolitan Edison Company (567 employees, TCR 2.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 2.5 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 05001,0001,5002,000 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Metropolitan Edison Company
Metropolitan Edison Company (567 employees, TCR 2.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 2.5

Metropolitan Edison Company has more employees than the Distribution of electric power median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.5. 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 2.7 1.4 15 1 0
2023 5.3 4.0 22 4 0
2022 1.8 1.1 7 1 0
2021 2.0 1.5 10 3 0
2020 1.3 1.2 3 6 0
2019 1.2 1.0 8 0 0
2018 1.9 1.4 13 0 0
2017 2.6 2.1 17 0 0
2016 0.3 0.2 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

221122 · PA · Reading

2,958 Distribution of electric power employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,692 rated employers in Pennsylvania with headcount on file · 303 employers in Reading, 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 ACE- Bridgeton Operations 2.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Bismarck Service Center 2.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR LUMA, Carolina Hangar 2.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brewerton-NYEB 2.1 TCR
STATE-SIZE 8027637 Zulily Bethlehem PA 567 FTE
STATE-SIZE Thermo Fisher Scientific Millersburg Main Campus 568 FTE
STATE-SIZE DEVON 568 FTE
STATE-SIZE Zippo Manufacturing Company 566 FTE
CITY-NEAR READING HOSPITAL 5,693 FTE
CITY-NEAR SAO : Reading 2,203 FTE
CITY-NEAR A077 - Penn State Health St. Joseph Medical Center 1,764 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon.com Services LLC - TEN1 1,261 FTE
NAT-TCR Americold Logistics, LLC: Fort Smith 45 2.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Bismarck Service Center 2.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Boelte-Hall, LLC 2.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Elkhart Products Corporation - Fayetteville 2.1 TCR
NAT-SIZE Strive Health 567 FTE
NAT-SIZE Honolulu Board of Water Supply 567 FTE
NAT-SIZE Dakkota Integrated Systems 567 FTE
NAT-SIZE Janssen Pharmaceutical RandD San Diego 567 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.