Heat treating metals and metal products for the trade · Michigan

Heat Treating Services Plant 2

Waterford, MI · ~44 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
9.4
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Heat Treating Services Plant 2 runs at 286% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Heat treating metals and metal products for the trade workplace, earning a grade F.

Heat Treating Services Plant 2: 9.4 TCR = 286% of Heat treating metals and metal products for the trade BLS 3.3 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Heat Treating Services Plant 2 safety composite

Heat Treating Services Plant 2 scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% 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).

F

22/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 9.43 per 100 workers

Safer than 11% of industry peers

DART rate
F 6.6 per 100 workers

Safer than 14% 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

Heat Treating Services Plant 2: 0.0 → 11.0 TCR

Peak year 2023 @ 14.1 TCR · DART/TCR 0.7× in 2024

Heat Treating Services Plant 2's TCR rose 11.0 from 0.0 in 2021 to 11.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 14.1 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.7× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332811 · Waterford, MI ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 9.4 · 286% of ind

  • DART 6.6 DART
  • RANK #36/43
  • PHOTO Bodycote Thermal Pro…
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 16 inj
  • SIZE ~44 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Bodycote Thermal Processing, inc - Rochester (0.1 TCR gap)

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

Heat Treating Services Plant 2 in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Heat Treating Services Plant 2 averages 9.4 TCR (286% of the Heat treating metals and metal products for the trade BLS benchmark).

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

Heat Treating Services Plant 2 TCR series: 2021=0 · 2022=12.6 · 2023=14.1 · 2024=11 · BLS 3.3

Where Heat Treating Services Plant 2 falls in its industry

248 Heat treating metals and metal establishments

Safer than 11% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #36 safest of 43 Heat treating metals and metal employers in Michigan.

Heat Treating Services Plant 2 (44 employees, TCR 9.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 38 employees and a TCR of 4.2 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 Heat Treating Services Plant 2
Heat Treating Services Plant 2 (44 employees, TCR 9.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 38 employees and a TCR of 4.2

Heat Treating Services Plant 2 has more employees than the Heat treating metals and metal products median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.2. 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 11.0 6.6 5 0 0
2023 14.1 14.1 6 0 0
2022 12.6 7.5 5 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332811 · MI · Waterford

248 Heat treating metals and metal products for the trade employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 51 employers in Waterford, MI · 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 Bodycote Thermal Processing, inc - Rochester 9.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Bodycote Thermal Processing, Inc. - Sturtevant 9.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR AP Westshore, Inc 9.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Bodycote Thermal Processing, Inc. 9.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE NW Planning & Design Center 44 FTE
STATE-SIZE SEMCO Energy Gas Company - Macomb 44 FTE
STATE-SIZE Genesee County Water & Waste Services 44 FTE
STATE-SIZE Anthony Ragnone Treatment Plant 44 FTE
CITY-NEAR Oakland Schools 677 FTE
CITY-NEAR Meijer 270 FTE
CITY-NEAR Meijer 053 267 FTE
CITY-NEAR 053 - Waterford 261 FTE
NAT-TCR 5330 - Seattle North 9.4 TCR
NAT-TCR PSNS Bremerton 9.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Complete Care 9.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Jefferson PDC 9.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc 44 FTE
NAT-SIZE Republic Waste Services of Texas LTD 44 FTE
NAT-SIZE Big Top Bingo 44 FTE
NAT-SIZE Plains Art Museum 44 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.