Waste collection, treatment, and disposal through a sewer system · California

SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant

Kingsburg, CA · ~30 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
5.2
Avg TCR
1.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant runs at 437% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Waste collection, treatment, and disposal through a sewer system workplace, earning a grade F.

SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant: 5.2 TCR = 437% of Waste collection, treatment, and disposal through a sewer system BLS 1.2 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant safety composite

SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 33%), 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).

D

41/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 5.24 per 100 workers

Safer than 43% of industry peers

DART rate
F 3.74 per 100 workers

Safer than 33% 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%).

TCR Δ

−5.9

2018→2022

SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant injury rate improved

SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant's TCR fell 5.9 from 9.6 in 2018 to 3.7 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2018 at 9.6 TCR. In 2022, DART was 0.71× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2018=9.6 · 2019=6.4 · 2020=6.4 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=3.7

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 221320 · Kingsburg, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 5.2 · 437% of ind

  • DART 3.7 DART
  • RANK #35/74
  • PHOTO Town of Waterford Ut…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 8 inj
  • SIZE ~30 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Town of Waterford Utility Commission (0.0 TCR gap)

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

SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant averages 5.2 TCR (437% of the Waste collection, treatment, and disposal through a sewer system BLS benchmark).

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

SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant TCR series: 2018=9.6 · 2019=6.4 · 2020=6.4 · 2021=0 · 2022=3.7 · BLS 1.2

Where SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant falls in its industry

400 Waste collection, treatment, a establishments

Safer than 43% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.4.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #35 safest of 74 Waste collection, treatment, a employers in California.

SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant (30 employees, TCR 5.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 47 employees and a TCR of 4.4 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 0200400600 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant
SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant (30 employees, TCR 5.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 47 employees and a TCR of 4.4

SKF Wastewater Treatment Plant has fewer employees than the Waste collection, treatment, and disposa median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.4. 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
2022 3.7 3.7 1 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 6.4 0.0 2 0 0
2019 6.4 3.2 2 0 0
2018 9.6 0.0 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

221320 · CA · Kingsburg

400 Waste collection, treatment, and disposal through a sewer system employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 62 employers in Kingsburg, 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 Town of Waterford Utility Commission 5.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Woodard & Curran - PWSD #2 5.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Alvarado Treatment Plant - Public Utilities 5.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Hamilton Township Department of Water Pollution Control (Sewer) 5.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE BZNUR 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE 1780 San Juan Rd. 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE Charter Oaks 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE Greenfields Turf, Inc. 30 FTE
CITY-NEAR LEOPOLDO'S FARM SERVICE, INC. 2,541 FTE
CITY-NEAR OFR INC 1,020 FTE
CITY-NEAR EDITH VILLALBASO 747 FTE
CITY-NEAR Kingsburg Fruit Packing Inc. 524 FTE
NAT-TCR City of Annapolis 5.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Food City Store #653 5.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Food City Store #661 5.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Lunds & Byerlys, Plymouth 5.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Lakeside Container Corp. 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE Tops #710 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE Chelsea Lumber Companyp-Saline 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE CD Investors, LLC/Production Facility 30 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: 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.