Pipe hangers and supports, metal, manufacturing · South Carolina

James C White Company, Inc.

Greenville, SC · ~24 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
1.8
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

James C White Company, Inc. runs at 55% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Pipe hangers and supports, metal, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade B.

James C White Company, Inc.: 1.8 TCR = 55% of Pipe hangers and supports, metal, manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

James C White Company, Inc. safety composite

James C White Company, Inc. scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 84% 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).

B

75/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 1.83 per 100 workers

Safer than 84% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 83% 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

−4.8

2019→2024

James C White Company, Inc. injury rate improved

James C White Company, Inc.'s TCR fell 4.8 from 4.8 in 2019 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2019 at 4.8 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2019=4.8 · 2021=4.4 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332999 · Greenville, SC AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade B · TCR 1.8 · 55% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #3/13
  • PHOTO Biomerics NLE-CA
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 2 inj
  • SIZE ~24 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Biomerics NLE-CA (0.0 TCR gap)

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

James C White Company, Inc. in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows James C White Company, Inc. averages 1.8 TCR (55% of the Pipe hangers and supports, metal, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

James C White Company, Inc. TCR series: 2019=4.8 · 2021=4.4 · 2022=0 · 2023=0 · 2024=0 · BLS 3.3

Where James C White Company, Inc. falls in its industry

827 Pipe hangers and supports, met establishments

Safer than 84% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to South Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #3 safest of 13 Pipe hangers and supports, met employers in South Carolina.

James C White Company, Inc. (24 employees, TCR 1.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 67 employees and a TCR of 4.5 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 0100200300400 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate James C White Company, Inc.
James C White Company, Inc. (24 employees, TCR 1.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 67 employees and a TCR of 4.5

James C White Company, Inc. has fewer employees than the Pipe hangers and supports, metal, manufa median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.5. 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 4.4 4.4 1 0 0
2019 4.8 0.0 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332999 · SC · Greenville

827 Pipe hangers and supports, metal, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,610 rated employers in South Carolina with headcount on file · 573 employers in Greenville, 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 Biomerics NLE-CA 1.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR The Andersons Inc. - Fab Shop 1.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR BEST Access Solutions, Inc. 1.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Medora Environmental dba Medora Corporation / Medora Transport 1.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE ISE Newberry Silverstreet Processing 24 FTE
STATE-SIZE American Timberlands 24 FTE
STATE-SIZE Aiken Substation/Transmission 24 FTE
STATE-SIZE Meter Lab (Columbia) 24 FTE
CITY-NEAR GREENVILLE MEMORIAL MED CAMPUS 6,132 FTE
CITY-NEAR St Francis Health System 3,395 FTE
CITY-NEAR Gas Power Systems : Greenville, SC, USA 2,971 FTE
CITY-NEAR GSC : Greenville, SC, USA 2,673 FTE
NAT-TCR Sodexo at Morningside University 1.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Scherer 1.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Barry 1.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Fuda Elmwood Park 1.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE COH Crime Lab 24 FTE
NAT-SIZE Worden Fire Protection District 24 FTE
NAT-SIZE Fruitland VAF 24 FTE
NAT-SIZE 5726 - Riverside 24 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, 2019. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.