Distribution of electric power · South Carolina

Savage Rd. Crew Quarters

Charleston, SC · ~26 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
2.4
Avg TCR
1.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Savage Rd. Crew Quarters runs at 197% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Distribution of electric power workplace, earning a grade D.

Savage Rd. Crew Quarters: 2.4 TCR = 197% of Distribution of electric power BLS 1.2 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Savage Rd. Crew Quarters safety composite

Savage Rd. Crew Quarters scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 79% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (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

62/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 2.36 per 100 workers

Safer than 53% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 79% 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%).

TCR Δ

−3.7

2017→2024

Savage Rd. Crew Quarters injury rate improved

Savage Rd. Crew Quarters's TCR fell 3.7 from 3.7 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2020 at 7.4 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=3.7 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=4.0 · 2020=7.4 · 2021=3.8 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 221122 · Charleston, SC ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 2.4 · 197% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #64/86
  • PHOTO VERSARES BUILDING CR…
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 5 inj
  • SIZE ~26 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: VERSARES BUILDING CREW HQTRS-NY20 (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Savage Rd. Crew Quarters in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Savage Rd. Crew Quarters averages 2.4 TCR (197% 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

Savage Rd. Crew Quarters TCR series: 2017=3.7 · 2018=0 · 2019=4 · 2020=7.4 · 2021=3.8 · 2022=0 · 2023=0 · 2024=0 · BLS 1.2

Where Savage Rd. Crew Quarters falls in its industry

2,958 Distribution of electric power establishments

Safer than 53% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to South Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #64 safest of 86 Distribution of electric power employers in South Carolina.

Savage Rd. Crew Quarters (26 employees, TCR 2.4) 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 Savage Rd. Crew Quarters
Savage Rd. Crew Quarters (26 employees, TCR 2.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 2.5

Savage Rd. Crew Quarters has fewer 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 3.8 0.0 1 0 0
2020 7.4 7.4 2 0 0
2019 4.0 4.0 1 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 3.7 3.7 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

221122 · SC · Charleston

2,958 Distribution of electric power employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,610 rated employers in South Carolina with headcount on file · 341 employers in Charleston, SC · 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 VERSARES BUILDING CREW HQTRS-NY20 2.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Inland Power and Light Company 2.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR AMEREN ILLINOIS - East St. Louis 2.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR GREENVILLE 2.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE Walther Farms SC 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE COLUMBIA ENERGY CENTER 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE Simpsonville Operations Center 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sossamon Construction Co., Inc. 26 FTE
CITY-NEAR Medical University Hospital Authority 8,204 FTE
CITY-NEAR Medical University of South Carolina 5,881 FTE
CITY-NEAR SC-03 4,525 FTE
CITY-NEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT DIVISION 1,790 FTE
NAT-TCR Great Northern Corporation - Twin Cities 2.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Transport 2.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Plover 2.4 TCR
NAT-TCR AmeriTemps - Irving 2.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Hotel Current 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE The Charles Schillinger Co 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE Olympic Systems Corporation 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE Gremp Steel Company 26 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.