Fire and flood restoration of commercial and institutional buildings · Utah

1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT

North Salt Lake City, UT · ~21 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
7.4
Avg TCR
2.9
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT runs at 254% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Fire and flood restoration of commercial and institutional buildings workplace, earning a grade F.

1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT: 7.4 TCR = 254% of Fire and flood restoration of commercial and institutional buildings BLS 2.9 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT safety composite

1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 73% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 11%), 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

43/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 7.37 per 100 workers

Safer than 11% of industry peers

DART rate
C 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 73% 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

−13.4

2016→2020

1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT injury rate improved

1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT's TCR fell 13.4 from 13.4 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2020. Peak filing year was 2016 at 13.4 TCR. In 2020, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=13.4 · 2017=5.7 · 2018=12.4 · 2019=5.3 · 2020=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 236220 · North Salt Lake City, UT ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 7.4 · 254% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #44/44
  • PHOTO Diesslin Structures …
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 6 inj
  • SIZE ~21 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Diesslin Structures Inc (0.0 TCR gap)

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

1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows 1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT averages 7.4 TCR (254% of the Fire and flood restoration of commercial and institutional buildings BLS benchmark).

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

1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT TCR series: 2016=13.4 · 2017=5.7 · 2018=12.4 · 2019=5.3 · 2020=0 · BLS 2.9

Where 1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT falls in its industry

4,692 Fire and flood restoration of establishments

Safer than 11% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Utah alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #44 safest of 44 Fire and flood restoration of employers in Utah.

1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT (21 employees, TCR 7.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 55 employees and a TCR of 2.3 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 0100200300400500 02468 Average employees Total Case Rate 1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT
1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT (21 employees, TCR 7.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 55 employees and a TCR of 2.3

1067 - BELFOR Salt Lake City UT has fewer employees than the Fire and flood restoration of commercial median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.3. 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
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 5.3 5.3 1 0 0
2018 12.4 6.2 2 0 0
2017 5.7 5.7 1 0 0
2016 13.4 0.0 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

236220 · UT · North Salt Lake City

4,692 Fire and flood restoration of commercial and institutional buildings employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 3,861 rated employers in Utah with headcount on file · 4 employers in North Salt Lake City, UT · 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 Diesslin Structures Inc 7.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Versacon, Inc. 7.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Budget Maintenance, Inc. - Construction Services Division 7.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR K Construction Co Inc 7.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE Park City Con & Development 21 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sideone 21 FTE
STATE-SIZE Forefront Contractors, LLC 21 FTE
STATE-SIZE Clayco Inc. 21 FTE
CITY-NEAR Frontline Concrete Contracting, LLC 194 FTE
CITY-NEAR VFC Utah 51 FTE
CITY-NEAR Advanced Heating and Cooling Utah LLC 41 FTE
NAT-TCR Sebert - Naperville 7.4 TCR
NAT-TCR S06991 - WM Butler Hauling 7.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Thermotech Enterprises 7.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Hard Rock Hotel at Universal Orlando 7.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Stanley Land & Lumber Corporation 21 FTE
NAT-SIZE Beaver Valley 21 FTE
NAT-SIZE Sidney Grain Handling Facility 21 FTE
NAT-SIZE Hilton Head Volkswagon 21 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: 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.