Anodizing metals and metal products for the trade · Georgia

Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations

Eastman, GA · ~95 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
3.6
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations runs at 109% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Anodizing metals and metal products for the trade workplace, earning a grade C.

Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations: 3.6 TCR = 109% of Anodizing metals and metal products for the trade BLS 3.3 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations safety composite

Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 59% 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).

C

56/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 3.6 per 100 workers

Safer than 56% of industry peers

DART rate
C 0.96 per 100 workers

Safer than 59% 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

−7.6

2016→2018

Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations injury rate improved

Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations's TCR fell 7.6 from 8.6 in 2016 to 1.0 in 2018. Peak filing year was 2016 at 8.6 TCR. In 2018, DART was 0.27× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=8.6 · 2017=1.3 · 2018=1.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332813 · Eastman, GA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 3.6 · 109% of ind

  • DART 1.0 DART
  • RANK #2/8
  • PHOTO Apollo Metals, Ltd.
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 9 inj
  • SIZE ~95 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Apollo Metals, Ltd. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations averages 3.6 TCR (109% of the Anodizing metals and metal products for the trade BLS benchmark).

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

Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations TCR series: 2016=8.6 · 2017=1.3 · 2018=1 · BLS 3.3

Where Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations falls in its industry

585 Anodizing metals and metal pro establishments

Safer than 56% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Georgia alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #2 safest of 8 Anodizing metals and metal pro employers in Georgia.

Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations (95 employees, TCR 3.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 4.0 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 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations
Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations (95 employees, TCR 3.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 4.0

Valence Surface Technologies Eastman Operations has more employees than the Anodizing metals and metal products for median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.0. 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
2018 1.0 1.0 1 0 0
2017 1.3 1.3 1 0 0
2016 8.6 6.7 7 2 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332813 · GA · Eastman

585 Anodizing metals and metal products for the trade employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 14,941 rated employers in Georgia with headcount on file · 12 employers in Eastman, 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 Apollo Metals, Ltd. 3.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Koch Metal 3.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Electro-Max, Inc. 3.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Pride Plating 3.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Habersham Electric Membership Corporation 95 FTE
STATE-SIZE Hart EMC, Hartwell Office 95 FTE
STATE-SIZE IMMEC Inc. 95 FTE
STATE-SIZE Graves Electrical Services 95 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 1018 264 FTE
CITY-NEAR 1018 238 FTE
CITY-NEAR Eastman Healthcare and Rehab 135 FTE
CITY-NEAR Mondi Bags USA, LLC 132 FTE
NAT-TCR Glenlake Terrace Nursing and Rehabilitation Center 3.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Courtyard Austin N 3.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Michels Civil- Brownsville 3.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Martins Creek Generating Station 3.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Heartland Health Care Center - Battlecreek 95 FTE
NAT-SIZE Houston - 202 95 FTE
NAT-SIZE the Melanson company,inc 95 FTE
NAT-SIZE Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope Indianapolis 95 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: 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.