Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tube), nonrigid plastics, manufacturing · Ohio

Technoform Glass Insulation

Twinsburg, OH · ~32 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
10.0
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Technoform Glass Insulation runs at 304% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tube), nonrigid plastics, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade F.

Technoform Glass Insulation: 10.0 TCR = 304% of Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tube), nonrigid plastics, manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Technoform Glass Insulation safety composite

Technoform Glass Insulation scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 7%), 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

18/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 10.03 per 100 workers

Safer than 7% of industry peers

DART rate
F 7.9 per 100 workers

Safer than 7% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Technoform Glass Insulation: 6.7 → 7.9 TCR

Peak year 2023 @ 19.7 TCR · DART/TCR 0.79× in 2024

Technoform Glass Insulation's TCR rose 1.2 from 6.7 in 2016 to 7.9 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 19.7 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.79× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 326121 · Twinsburg, OH ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 10.0 · 304% of ind

  • DART 7.9 DART
  • RANK #19/19
  • PHOTO Kaso Plastics, Inc.
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 27 inj
  • SIZE ~32 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Kaso Plastics, Inc. (0.1 TCR gap)

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

Technoform Glass Insulation in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Technoform Glass Insulation averages 10.0 TCR (304% of the Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tube), nonrigid plastics, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Technoform Glass Insulation TCR series: 2016=6.7 · 2017=3 · 2018=10.2 · 2019=14.8 · 2020=7.4 · 2021=13.7 · 2022=6.8 · 2023=19.7 · 2024=7.9 · BLS 3.3

Where Technoform Glass Insulation falls in its industry

202 Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tub establishments

Safer than 7% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Ohio alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #19 safest of 19 Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tub employers in Ohio.

Technoform Glass Insulation (32 employees, TCR 10.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 71 employees and a TCR of 3.7 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 050100150200250 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Technoform Glass Insulation
Technoform Glass Insulation (32 employees, TCR 10.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 71 employees and a TCR of 3.7

Technoform Glass Insulation has fewer employees than the Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tube), nonrig median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.7. 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 7.9 7.9 2 0 0
2023 19.7 3.3 6 0 0
2022 6.8 0.0 2 0 0
2021 13.7 10.3 4 0 0
2020 7.4 3.7 1 1 0
2019 14.8 14.8 5 0 0
2018 10.2 7.7 4 0 0
2017 3.0 0.0 1 0 0
2016 6.7 3.3 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

326121 · OH · Twinsburg

202 Profile shapes (e.g., rod, tube), nonrigid plastics, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,650 rated employers in Ohio with headcount on file · 152 employers in Twinsburg, OH · 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 Kaso Plastics, Inc. 10.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Champion Window of South Bend 10.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Global Polymer Industries, Inc. 9.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Champion Window of Denver 9.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE Custom Agri Systems - Upper Sandusky 32 FTE
STATE-SIZE Tiffin Svc Ctr 32 FTE
STATE-SIZE Delaware Svc Ctr 32 FTE
STATE-SIZE Midwest Electric, Inc. 32 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon Transportation Services : CLE5 1,079 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon.com Services LLC - CLE5 785 FTE
CITY-NEAR 6458-ZECL 598 FTE
CITY-NEAR TWINSBURG OH 475 FTE
NAT-TCR Aegis of Carmichael 10.0 TCR
NAT-TCR USL 10.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Mast & Brunk, Inc. 10.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Town of Stafford 10.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE DeQuincy, LA 32 FTE
NAT-SIZE Fatburger - #242 Excalibur 32 FTE
NAT-SIZE Module Truck Systems, Inc. - Lubbock 32 FTE
NAT-SIZE Arcotech - PC 32 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.