Annealing metals and metal products for the trade · Connecticut

Hydro Honing Laboratories

East Hartford, CT · ~45 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
2.6
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Hydro Honing Laboratories runs at 79% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Annealing metals and metal products for the trade workplace, earning a grade B.

Hydro Honing Laboratories: 2.6 TCR = 79% of Annealing metals and metal products for the trade BLS 3.3 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Hydro Honing Laboratories safety composite

Hydro Honing Laboratories 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

70/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 2.62 per 100 workers

Safer than 75% 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

−2.3

2016→2024

Hydro Honing Laboratories injury rate improved

Hydro Honing Laboratories's TCR fell 2.3 from 2.3 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2017 at 8.5 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=2.3 · 2017=8.5 · 2018=1.8 · 2019=0.0 · 2020=2.5 · 2021=2.0 · 2022=4.4 · 2023=2.1 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332811 · East Hartford, CT AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade B · TCR 2.6 · 79% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #3/11
  • PHOTO Imprex a Godfrey & W…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 2 inj
  • SIZE ~45 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Imprex a Godfrey & Wing Company (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Hydro Honing Laboratories in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Hydro Honing Laboratories averages 2.6 TCR (79% of the Annealing 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

Hydro Honing Laboratories TCR series: 2016=2.3 · 2017=8.5 · 2018=1.8 · 2019=0 · 2020=2.5 · 2021=2 · 2022=4.4 · 2023=2.1 · 2024=0 · BLS 3.3

Where Hydro Honing Laboratories falls in its industry

248 Annealing metals and metal pro establishments

Safer than 75% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Connecticut alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #3 safest of 11 Annealing metals and metal pro employers in Connecticut.

Hydro Honing Laboratories (45 employees, TCR 2.6) 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 Hydro Honing Laboratories
Hydro Honing Laboratories (45 employees, TCR 2.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 38 employees and a TCR of 4.2

Hydro Honing Laboratories has more employees than the Annealing metals and metal products for median and a lower 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 2.1 0.0 0 1 0
2022 4.4 0.0 0 2 0
2021 2.0 0.0 0 1 0
2020 2.5 0.0 0 1 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 1.8 0.0 0 1 0
2017 8.5 2.1 2 2 0
2016 2.3 0.0 0 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332811 · CT · East Hartford

248 Annealing metals and metal products for the trade employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,008 rated employers in Connecticut with headcount on file · 119 employers in East Hartford, CT · 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 Imprex a Godfrey & Wing Company 2.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Metal Improvement Company LLC 2.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Zion Industries - Grand Ledge 2.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR BodyCote Holland 2.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE 150_249 45 FTE
STATE-SIZE Landmark 45 FTE
STATE-SIZE URSM 45 FTE
STATE-SIZE 617 45 FTE
CITY-NEAR Pratt & Whitney East Hartford 9,837 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cyient, Inc. 1,228 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cyient, Inc (US combined) 1,074 FTE
CITY-NEAR DDS North Region 755 FTE
NAT-TCR Triad Manufacturing, Inc. 2.6 TCR
NAT-TCR 3614 - EAN Holdings, LLC Hawaii Division 2.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Indiana University Health White Memorial Hospital, Inc. 2.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Beaumont 2.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE El Paso Prepared Foods, LLC 45 FTE
NAT-SIZE Xanitos EVS at Garfield Medical Center 45 FTE
NAT-SIZE Wabash Lafayette Process Systems 45 FTE
NAT-SIZE V&S Delaware Galvanizing LLC 45 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.

Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.