Bends, pipe, made from purchased metal pipe · Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc.

Rochester, PA · ~22 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.8
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc. runs at 145% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Bends, pipe, made from purchased metal pipe workplace, earning a grade D.

Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc.: 4.8 TCR = 145% of Bends, pipe, made from purchased metal pipe BLS 3.3 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc. safety composite

Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc. scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 81% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 32%), 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

54/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 4.79 per 100 workers

Safer than 32% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 81% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% 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

−0.7

2016→2023

Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc. injury rate improved

Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc.'s TCR fell 0.7 from 4.7 in 2016 to 4.0 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2022 at 12.8 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=4.7 · 2017=4.4 · 2018=8.5 · 2019=3.8 · 2020=0.0 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=12.8 · 2023=4.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332996 · Rochester, PA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 4.8 · 145% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #12/28
  • PHOTO Curtis Products, Inc.
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 9 inj
  • SIZE ~22 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Curtis Products, Inc. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc. in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc. averages 4.8 TCR (145% of the Bends, pipe, made from purchased metal pipe BLS benchmark).

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

Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc. TCR series: 2016=4.7 · 2017=4.4 · 2018=8.5 · 2019=3.8 · 2020=0 · 2021=0 · 2022=12.8 · 2023=4 · BLS 3.3

Where Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc. falls in its industry

337 Bends, pipe, made from purchas establishments

Safer than 32% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Pennsylvania alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #12 safest of 28 Bends, pipe, made from purchas employers in Pennsylvania.

Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc. (22 employees, TCR 4.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 63 employees and a TCR of 3.3 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 02004006008001,000 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc.
Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc. (22 employees, TCR 4.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 63 employees and a TCR of 3.3

Pittsburgh Tubular Shafting, Inc. has fewer employees than the Bends, pipe, made from purchased metal p median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.3. 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
2023 4.0 0.0 1 0 0
2022 12.8 12.8 3 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 3.8 0.0 1 0 0
2018 8.5 8.5 2 0 0
2017 4.4 4.4 1 0 0
2016 4.7 4.7 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332996 · PA · Rochester

337 Bends, pipe, made from purchased metal pipe employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,692 rated employers in Pennsylvania with headcount on file · 11 employers in Rochester, 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 Curtis Products, Inc. 4.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR KOP 4.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Jett Cutting Service, Inc. 4.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR The Pipe Line Development Company 4.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE Dawson's Orchards 22 FTE
STATE-SIZE Kuhn Orchards, LLC 22 FTE
STATE-SIZE Giorgi Mushroom Farm 3 22 FTE
STATE-SIZE New Hope 22 FTE
CITY-NEAR USA PA Rochester Plant 164 FTE
CITY-NEAR Giant Eagle #0062 134 FTE
CITY-NEAR US PA Rochester Plant 86 FTE
CITY-NEAR East Rochester Packaging Plant 70 FTE
NAT-TCR TB - Tucson Broadway Village 4.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Pieratt's Inc 4.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Flex-N-Gate Covington 4.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Benjamin Steel Co-Springfield 4.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Brookdale West Melbourne Memory Care 22 FTE
NAT-SIZE AW- Albuquerque West 22 FTE
NAT-SIZE Austin-AU 22 FTE
NAT-SIZE DD - Design District 22 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: 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.