Pharmaceutical preparations (e.g., capsules, liniments, ointments, tablets) manufacturing · Georgia

Nitro Quimica Corporation

College Park, GA · ~25 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
5.6
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Nitro Quimica Corporation runs at 169% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Pharmaceutical preparations (e.g., capsules, liniments, ointments, tablets) manufacturing workplace, earning a grade D.

Nitro Quimica Corporation: 5.6 TCR = 169% of Pharmaceutical preparations (e.g., capsules, liniments, ointments, tablets) manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Nitro Quimica Corporation safety composite

Nitro Quimica Corporation scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 1%), 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

17/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 5.59 per 100 workers

Safer than 11% of industry peers

DART rate
F 11.54 per 100 workers

Safer than 1% 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

Nitro Quimica Corporation: 5.2 → 11.5 TCR

Peak year 2024 @ 11.5 TCR · DART/TCR 2.06× in 2024

Nitro Quimica Corporation's TCR rose 6.3 from 5.2 in 2021 to 11.5 in 2024. In 2024, DART was 2.06× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 325412 · College Park, GA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 5.6 · 169% of ind

  • DART 11.5 DART
  • RANK #13/14
  • PHOTO Bohannon
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 4 inj
  • SIZE ~25 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Bohannon (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Nitro Quimica Corporation in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Nitro Quimica Corporation averages 5.6 TCR (169% of the Pharmaceutical preparations (e.g., capsules, liniments, ointments, tablets) manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Nitro Quimica Corporation TCR series: 2021=5.2 · 2023=0 · 2024=11.5 · BLS 3.3

Where Nitro Quimica Corporation falls in its industry

855 Pharmaceutical preparations (e establishments

Safer than 11% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.6.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Georgia alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #13 safest of 14 Pharmaceutical preparations (e employers in Georgia.

Nitro Quimica Corporation (25 employees, TCR 5.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 171 employees and a TCR of 1.6 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 01,0002,0003,0004,000 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Nitro Quimica Corporation
Nitro Quimica Corporation (25 employees, TCR 5.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 171 employees and a TCR of 1.6

Nitro Quimica Corporation has fewer employees than the Pharmaceutical preparations (e.g., capsu median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.6. 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 11.5 11.5 3 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 5.2 5.2 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

325412 · GA · College Park

855 Pharmaceutical preparations (e.g., capsules, liniments, ointments, tablets) manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 14,941 rated employers in Georgia with headcount on file · 75 employers in College Park, GA · 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 Bohannon 5.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Nature's Sunshine- Spanish Fork 5.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR SOFIE - Totowa - NJ3 5.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR SOFIE - Sanford 5.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE Four Corners Gin Inc. Co. 25 FTE
STATE-SIZE W.C. Bradley Farms, Inc. 25 FTE
STATE-SIZE Metro East TMC (Conyers)- 1465 General Arts Rd. Conyers, GA 25 FTE
STATE-SIZE Manchester Operating - 524 Atlantic Street Manchester, GA 25 FTE
CITY-NEAR COLLEGE PARK 9,165 FTE
CITY-NEAR Office of Field Operations - Atlanta 1,228 FTE
CITY-NEAR Golden Gate America East LLC. 954 FTE
CITY-NEAR Sysco Atlanta 811 FTE
NAT-TCR HCA Florida Memorial Hospital 5.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Syrstone, Inc 5.6 TCR
NAT-TCR West Point 5.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Hyatt Place Houston Galleria 5.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Niagara St ICF 25 FTE
NAT-SIZE Hajoca 524 25 FTE
NAT-SIZE R21 DC Metro MD-VA 25 FTE
NAT-SIZE Oakland Ca - 380 25 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, 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.