Manufacturing of high purity fluid handling equipment · Utah

White Knight Fluid Handling

Kamas, UT · ~101 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
3.8
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

White Knight Fluid Handling runs at 114% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Manufacturing of high purity fluid handling equipment workplace, earning a grade C.

White Knight Fluid Handling: 3.8 TCR = 114% of Manufacturing of high purity fluid handling equipment BLS 3.3 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

White Knight Fluid Handling safety composite

White Knight Fluid Handling scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 58% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 48%), 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

53/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 3.77 per 100 workers

Safer than 58% of industry peers

DART rate
D 1.8 per 100 workers

Safer than 48% 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

−3.5

2017→2024

White Knight Fluid Handling injury rate improved

White Knight Fluid Handling's TCR fell 3.5 from 6.2 in 2017 to 2.7 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2020 at 6.5 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.48× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=6.2 · 2018=3.3 · 2019=3.2 · 2020=6.5 · 2021=1.8 · 2022=3.8 · 2023=2.7 · 2024=2.7

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332999 · Kamas, UT ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade C · TCR 3.8 · 114% of ind

  • DART 1.8 DART
  • RANK #2/4
  • PHOTO ASC Engineered Solut…
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 23 inj
  • SIZE ~101 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: ASC Engineered Solutions - EPS (0.0 TCR gap)

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

White Knight Fluid Handling in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows White Knight Fluid Handling averages 3.8 TCR (114% of the Manufacturing of high purity fluid handling equipment BLS benchmark).

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

White Knight Fluid Handling TCR series: 2017=6.2 · 2018=3.3 · 2019=3.2 · 2020=6.5 · 2021=1.8 · 2022=3.8 · 2023=2.7 · 2024=2.7 · BLS 3.3

Where White Knight Fluid Handling falls in its industry

827 Manufacturing of high purity f establishments

Safer than 58% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Utah alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #2 safest of 4 Manufacturing of high purity f employers in Utah.

White Knight Fluid Handling (101 employees, TCR 3.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 67 employees and a TCR of 4.5 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 0100200300400 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate White Knight Fluid Handling
White Knight Fluid Handling (101 employees, TCR 3.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 67 employees and a TCR of 4.5

White Knight Fluid Handling has more employees than the Manufacturing of high purity fluid handl median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.5. 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 2.7 1.8 3 0 0
2023 2.7 1.4 4 0 0
2022 3.8 0.6 5 1 0
2021 1.8 0.9 2 0 0
2020 6.5 2.6 5 0 0
2019 3.2 1.6 1 1 0
2018 3.3 1.7 1 1 0
2017 6.2 0.0 2 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332999 · UT · Kamas

827 Manufacturing of high purity fluid handling equipment employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 3,861 rated employers in Utah with headcount on file · 3 employers in Kamas, UT · 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 ASC Engineered Solutions - EPS 3.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Giese Manufacturing Co., Inc. 3.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Tosoh SMD - Grove City 3.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Alternative Design Mfg, Inc. 3.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE 00536 MT OGDEN SERV CTR 101 FTE
STATE-SIZE Marathon Petroleum Company Salt Lake City UT 101 FTE
STATE-SIZE Superior Roofing & Sheet metal, Inc. 101 FTE
STATE-SIZE Superior Roofing and Sheet Metal 101 FTE
CITY-NEAR JP Company 29 FTE
CITY-NEAR Park City UT Yard 20 FTE
NAT-TCR Clay County - Maintenance 3.8 TCR
NAT-TCR 50038 - Capstone Kroger Tolleson 3.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Cleveland Clinic Rehabilitation Hospital - Edwin Shaw (Akron) 3.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Berryville Growout 3.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Brookdale Park Place 101 FTE
NAT-SIZE J.B. Steel 101 FTE
NAT-SIZE Aerolite LLC 101 FTE
NAT-SIZE 50028 - Capstone Kroger Bluffton 101 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.