Ship repair done in a shipyard · New York

Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises

Kingston, NY · ~76 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
5.7
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises runs at 172% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Ship repair done in a shipyard workplace, earning a grade D.

Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises: 5.7 TCR = 172% of Ship repair done in a shipyard BLS 3.3 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises safety composite

Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 54% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 35%), 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

46/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 5.68 per 100 workers

Safer than 35% of industry peers

DART rate
D 1.87 per 100 workers

Safer than 54% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 52% 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

−5.4

2016→2024

Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises injury rate improved

Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises's TCR fell 5.4 from 10.1 in 2016 to 4.7 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2017 at 10.8 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.33× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=10.1 · 2017=10.8 · 2018=3.8 · 2019=5.4 · 2020=7.7 · 2021=2.9 · 2022=2.2 · 2023=3.5 · 2024=4.7

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 336611 · Kingston, NY ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 5.7 · 172% of ind

  • DART 1.9 DART
  • RANK #4/9
  • PHOTO Illinois Marine Towing
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 38 inj
  • SIZE ~76 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Illinois Marine Towing (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises averages 5.7 TCR (172% of the Ship repair done in a shipyard BLS benchmark).

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

Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises TCR series: 2016=10.1 · 2017=10.8 · 2018=3.8 · 2019=5.4 · 2020=7.7 · 2021=2.9 · 2022=2.2 · 2023=3.5 · 2024=4.7 · BLS 3.3

Where Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises falls in its industry

454 Ship repair done in a shipyard establishments

Safer than 35% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to New York alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #4 safest of 9 Ship repair done in a shipyard employers in New York.

Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises (76 employees, TCR 5.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 100 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 01,0002,0003,0004,0005,000 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises
Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises (76 employees, TCR 5.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 100 employees and a TCR of 4.2

Thomas J. Feeney Enterprises has fewer employees than the Ship repair done in a shipyard median and a higher 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 4.7 1.9 3 2 0
2023 3.5 2.4 3 0 0
2022 2.2 1.1 2 0 0
2021 2.9 0.0 2 0 0
2020 7.7 2.6 4 2 0
2019 5.4 4.0 4 0 0
2018 3.8 2.5 3 0 0
2017 10.8 4.8 9 0 0
2016 10.1 3.8 8 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

336611 · NY · Kingston

454 Ship repair done in a shipyard employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 21,008 rated employers in New York with headcount on file · 91 employers in Kingston, NY · 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 Illinois Marine Towing 5.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR VTM-450 JACKSONVILLE 5.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR 808 Live Oak Dr 5.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Rhoads Maritime 5.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Brightfarms Inc. 76 FTE
STATE-SIZE POTSDAM SERVICE CENTER-NY99 76 FTE
STATE-SIZE Bennett Contracting Inc 76 FTE
STATE-SIZE 3841_7298 76 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 2504 402 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2504 384 FTE
CITY-NEAR Kingston 335 FTE
CITY-NEAR Unlimited Care, Inc. Kingston, NY 307 FTE
NAT-TCR F-S Prestress LLC Princeton 5.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Windmill Rice Company 5.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Berkots 322 5.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Monical's Pizza Bourbonnais 5.7 TCR
NAT-SIZE Rolling Green Village 76 FTE
NAT-SIZE Oelwein Health Care Center 76 FTE
NAT-SIZE Valk Manufacturing Company 76 FTE
NAT-SIZE Vineyard Court Nursing Center 76 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.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.