Copper compounds, not specified elsewhere by process, manufacturing · California

Phibro-Tech, Inc.

Santa Fe Springs, CA · ~71 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.9
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Phibro-Tech, Inc. runs at 150% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Copper compounds, not specified elsewhere by process, manufacturing workplace, earning a grade D.

Phibro-Tech, Inc.: 4.9 TCR = 150% of Copper compounds, not specified elsewhere by process, manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Phibro-Tech, Inc. safety composite

Phibro-Tech, Inc. scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 6%), 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

20/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 4.94 per 100 workers

Safer than 13% of industry peers

DART rate
F 6.76 per 100 workers

Safer than 6% 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

Phibro-Tech, Inc.: 3.9 → 6.8 TCR

Peak year 2018 @ 8.8 TCR · DART/TCR 1.37× in 2024

Phibro-Tech, Inc.'s TCR rose 2.8 from 3.9 in 2017 to 6.8 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2018 at 8.8 TCR. In 2024, DART was 1.37× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 325180 · Santa Fe Springs, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 4.9 · 150% of ind

  • DART 6.8 DART
  • RANK #22/22
  • PHOTO Carbonfree Chemicals
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 27 inj
  • SIZE ~71 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Carbonfree Chemicals (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Phibro-Tech, Inc. in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Phibro-Tech, Inc. averages 4.9 TCR (150% of the Copper compounds, not specified elsewhere by process, manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Phibro-Tech, Inc. TCR series: 2017=3.9 · 2018=8.8 · 2019=4.9 · 2020=2.4 · 2022=2.3 · 2023=5.5 · 2024=6.8 · BLS 3.3

Where Phibro-Tech, Inc. falls in its industry

418 Copper compounds, not specifie establishments

Safer than 13% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #22 safest of 22 Copper compounds, not specifie employers in California.

Phibro-Tech, Inc. (71 employees, TCR 4.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 61 employees and a TCR of 1.9 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 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate Phibro-Tech, Inc.
Phibro-Tech, Inc. (71 employees, TCR 4.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 61 employees and a TCR of 1.9

Phibro-Tech, Inc. has more employees than the Copper compounds, not specified elsewher median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.9. 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 6.8 6.8 6 0 0
2023 5.5 5.5 5 0 0
2022 2.3 1.1 0 2 0
2020 2.4 2.4 2 0 0
2019 4.9 2.5 4 0 0
2018 8.8 7.5 7 0 0
2017 3.9 3.9 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

325180 · CA · Santa Fe Springs

418 Copper compounds, not specified elsewhere by process, manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 310 employers in Santa Fe Springs, CA · 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 Carbonfree Chemicals 5.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR YS, Inc. 4.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Akzo Nobel Pulp and Performance Chemicals Inc. 4.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Global Laser Enrichment 5.1 TCR
STATE-SIZE M Pineda Farming Co 71 FTE
STATE-SIZE AgSource Services, LLC 71 FTE
STATE-SIZE Schafer Ranch, Inc 71 FTE
STATE-SIZE R & J Dondero Inc 71 FTE
CITY-NEAR California Department of Transportation Facility 423 3,217 FTE
CITY-NEAR CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. 1,217 FTE
CITY-NEAR CSI 1,179 FTE
CITY-NEAR Vans Distribution Center - SFS 757 FTE
NAT-TCR Presidio Contracting, LLC 4.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Story County 4.9 TCR
NAT-TCR A. J. Missert, Inc. 4.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Brockton 4.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE Marrington Elementry School 71 FTE
NAT-SIZE Peters Construction Corporation 71 FTE
NAT-SIZE Aloe Vera of America, Inc 71 FTE
NAT-SIZE Great Oaks Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center 71 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, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.