Scaffold erecting and dismantling · Tennessee

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance

Spring City, TN · ~325 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.1
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance runs at 4% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Scaffold erecting and dismantling workplace, earning a grade A.

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance: 0.1 TCR = 4% of Scaffold erecting and dismantling BLS 2.8 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance safety composite

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 98% 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).

B

78/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0.12 per 100 workers

Safer than 98% of industry peers

DART rate
C 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 73% 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%).

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance held a steady TCR band

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance's TCR held near 0.2 from 0.0 in 2016 to 0.2 in 2017. In 2017, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=0.0 · 2017=0.2

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 238990 · Spring City, TN AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 0.1 · 4% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #2/37
  • PHOTO Industrial Scaffoldi…
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 1 inj
  • SIZE ~325 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Industrial Scaffolding L.L.C. DBA Industrial Specialty Crafts L.L.C. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance averages 0.1 TCR (4% of the Scaffold erecting and dismantling BLS benchmark).

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

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance TCR series: 2016=0 · 2017=0.2 · BLS 2.8

Where Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance falls in its industry

1,634 Scaffold erecting and dismantl establishments

Safer than 98% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Tennessee alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #2 safest of 37 Scaffold erecting and dismantl employers in Tennessee.

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance (325 employees, TCR 0.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 52 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 05001,0001,500 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance (325 employees, TCR 0.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 52 employees and a TCR of 1.9

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Maintenance has more employees than the Scaffold erecting and dismantling median and a lower 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
2017 0.2 0.0 1 0 0
2016 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

238990 · TN · Spring City

1,634 Scaffold erecting and dismantling employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 10,743 rated employers in Tennessee with headcount on file · 7 employers in Spring City, TN · 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 Industrial Scaffolding L.L.C. DBA Industrial Specialty Crafts L.L.C. 0.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Excel Modular Scaffolding and Leasing Corp 0.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Chevron Pascagoula Refinery Pascagoula MS 0.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR BrandSafway Industries LLC - Husky Superior Refinery - WI 0.1 TCR
STATE-SIZE 6th and Peabody 325 FTE
STATE-SIZE Tenneco (formerly Federal Mogul) 325 FTE
STATE-SIZE MANN+HUMMEL Plant 3 Dunlap,TN 325 FTE
STATE-SIZE Engineered Medical Systems 325 FTE
CITY-NEAR United TVA Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station SGRP 169 FTE
CITY-NEAR Huber Engineered Woods LLC 154 FTE
CITY-NEAR Watts Bar Nuclear Gnerating Station _SGRP 101 FTE
CITY-NEAR LP Spring City, LLC 96 FTE
NAT-TCR 6017-Corp Loc - USA United States - Elk Grove 0.1 TCR
NAT-TCR MS - Enterprise, AL - 5FTRU 0.1 TCR
NAT-TCR JFSNA at ExxonMobil Baytown Complex 0.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Nexeo Solutions - The Woodlands 0.1 TCR
NAT-SIZE Doctors Medical Center, Inc. 325 FTE
NAT-SIZE RCX Nebraska 325 FTE
NAT-SIZE Horsham Pa Office 325 FTE
NAT-SIZE #630 Wall Shoprite 325 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: 2017, 2016. 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.