Packaging, foam plastics (except polystyrene), manufacturing · Massachusetts

UFP Technologies Georgetown

Name: UFP Technologies Georgetown Workplace Safety Data
Creator: PlainSafetyScore
License: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Georgetown, MA · ~48 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

Compiled by PlainSafetyScore · August 25, 2026

C
Average Safety Record: 3.0
Avg TCR: 3.3
Industry avg: 0
Fatalities

Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

UFP Technologies Georgetown runs at 90% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Packaging, foam plastics (except polystyrene), manufacturing workplace, earning a grade C.

UFP Technologies Georgetown: 3.0 TCR = 90% of Packaging, foam plastics (except polystyrene), manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

UFP Technologies Georgetown safety composite

UFP Technologies Georgetown scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 82% 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).

62/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR): D 2.98 per 100 workers

Safer than 52% of industry peers
DART rate: B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 82% 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

−6.0

2017→2022

UFP Technologies Georgetown injury rate improved

UFP Technologies Georgetown's TCR fell 6.0 from 6.0 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2017 at 6.0 TCR. In 2022, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=6.0 · 2022=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 326150 · Georgetown, MA AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 3.0 · 90% of ind

DART 0.0 DART
RANK #4/10
PHOTO FCE3-FOAM-ELKHART 3
BOOK 2y book
INJ 4 inj
SIZE ~48 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: FCE3-FOAM-ELKHART 3 (0.0 TCR gap)

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

This site

3
FCE3-FOAM-ELKH

3
Elite Comfort

3
SWD Urethane

3
Future Foam, I

3

What this shows UFP Technologies Georgetown averages 3.0 TCR (90% of the Packaging, foam plastics (except polystyrene), manufacturing BLS benchmark).

UFP Technologies Georgetown TCR series: 2017=6 · 2022=0 · BLS 3.3

Where UFP Technologies Georgetown falls in its industry

474 Packaging, foam plastics (exce establishments

Safer than 52% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.1.

Grade C

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Massachusetts alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #4 safest of 10 Packaging, foam plastics (exce employers in Massachusetts.

UFP Technologies Georgetown (48 employees, TCR 3.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 76 employees and a TCR of 3.1

UFP Technologies Georgetown has fewer employees than the Packaging, foam plastics (except polysty median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.1. 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	0.0	0.0	0	0	0
2017	6.0	6.0	4	0	0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

326150 · MA · Georgetown

474 Packaging, foam plastics (except polystyrene), manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 10,108 rated employers in Massachusetts with headcount on file · 12 employers in Georgetown, MA · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel	Establishment	Place	Metric
NAICS-TCR	FCE3-FOAM-ELKHART 3	ELKHART, IN	3.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR	Elite Comfort Solutions - Conover Foam	CONOVER, NC	3.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR	SWD Urethane	MESA, AZ	3.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR	Future Foam, Inc.-Plant 31	MIDDLETON, WI	3.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE	Payne\|Bouchier Inc	BOSTON	48 FTE
STATE-SIZE	Rise Construction Management	BOSTON	48 FTE
STATE-SIZE	NA-US-MA-South Dennis-Western Boulevard	SOUTH DENNIS	48 FTE
STATE-SIZE	Plymouth MA	PLYMOUTH	48 FTE
CITY-NEAR	Mirra Co LLC	Georgetown	245 FTE
CITY-NEAR	Metal Tronics, LLC	Georgetown	79 FTE
CITY-NEAR	Cambridgeport	Georgetown	73 FTE
CITY-NEAR	UFPT Georgetown	Georgetown	59 FTE
NAT-TCR	Ohio Steel Industries, Plastics Div.	Columbus, OH	3.0 TCR
NAT-TCR	Human Technologies US5	Lexington, SC	3.0 TCR
NAT-TCR	708 - Stockton	Stockton, CA	3.0 TCR
NAT-TCR	West Central Florida Shared Services	St. Petersburg, FL	3.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE	H&S Towing Service, Inc	Harrisburg, PA	48 FTE
NAT-SIZE	LEX-ODFL	Lexington, KY	48 FTE
NAT-SIZE	OLY-ODFL	Olympia, WA	48 FTE
NAT-SIZE	EBI-ODFL	Edinburgh, IN	48 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, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.

Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.