Industry profile · NAICS 333249

Chemical processing machinery and equipment manufacturing

Workplace injury rates across 495 OSHA-reporting establishments in this industry, 2016–2024.

495
Employers
4.0
Avg TCR
3.3
BLS benchmark
6,426
Injuries

The industry picture

Employers in Chemical processing machinery and equipment manufacturing average 4.0 recordable injuries per 100 workers, 1.2 times the BLS national benchmark of 3.3.

4.0
avg TCR · reporting employers
3.3
BLS national benchmark
495
employers reporting
6,426
recordable injuries

OSHA-reporting establishments skew toward larger, higher-hazard sites, so the reporting average runs above the BLS all-establishment benchmark.

What Chemical processing machinery and equipment manufacturing Safety Data Reveals

The Chemical processing machinery and equipment manufacturing sector (NAICS 333249) encompasses 495 distinct employer establishments currently reporting to OSHA's Injury Tracking Application. Across this cohort, workers have logged 6,426 recordable injuries during the 2016–2024 reporting window, producing an industry-weighted average Total Case Rate (TCR) of 4.0 injuries per 100 full-time workers per year. Because OSHA's ITA mandates submission from establishments with 250+ employees plus all high-hazard industries at 20+ employees, this dataset represents a structural slice of U.S. workplace risk rather than a voluntary sample.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a separate national benchmark TCR of 3.3 for this NAICS code, derived from the BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. Comparing the two, the ITA-reported rate of 4.0 is higher than the BLS benchmark, a gap that typically widens when the industry contains many large, high-exposure establishments required to file ITA reports. Employers in the table below are sorted so you can see how far individual establishments deviate from both the industry average and the national benchmark.

The practical value of industry-level safety data is threefold. First, jobseekers can gauge whether a prospective employer is better or worse than its industry peers, not just absolute injury counts, which tilt toward larger payrolls. Second, insurers and workers' compensation carriers use sector TCR as a baseline for experience-modification adjustments. Third, safety professionals benchmark their own programs against the cohort median. Use the grade-sorted employer list below to identify specific establishments within Chemical processing machinery and equipment manufacturing that outperform or underperform the sector average, and click through to each record for year-by-year injury, illness, and fatality breakdowns.

Employers in this industry, by injury rate

Page 7 of 10
Employer LocationGradeAvg TCR
BACA Systems Orion Township, MI B 2.0
TTG Automation Fenton, MI B 2.0
Coeur d'Alene ID Coeur D'Alene, ID B 2.0
United Plastics Group, LLC Houston, TX B 2.0
Wabash MPI/Carver, Inc. Wabash, IN B 2.0
Schleuniger, Inc. Manchester, NH B 1.9
3D Systems (Titan) - Colorado Springs Colorado Springs, CO B 1.9
Suburban Tool & Die Co., Inc. Erie, PA B 1.9
ATMCR Charlotte, NC B 1.9
Gala Industries, Inc. Eagle Rock, VA B 1.9
Schaefer Technologies, Inc. Indianapolis, IN B 1.9
Nypro Devens, MA B 1.9
Burt Process equipment Hamden, CT B 1.9
Raschig USA El Dorado West Plant El Dorado, KS B 1.9
Coperion Corporation (CWW) - Wytheville Wytheville, VA B 1.8
Damick Enterprises Inc. Rochester Hills, MI B 1.8
Lancaster Lancaster, NY B 1.8
Direct Wire & Cable Denver, PA B 1.8
USA Corporate; Torrington Torrington, CT B 1.8
Phillips Plastics-Medisize Phillips, WI B 1.8
Stratasys RiverFalls (AMC) River Falls, WI B 1.8
Carbon Redwood City Redwood City, CA B 1.8
Milacron Afton Batavia, OH B 1.8
Home Pride 32 Window Bristol, VA B 1.8
Vanguard Pai Lung LLC Monroe, NC B 1.8
Graham Engineering Company LLC York, PA B 1.8
TTM Technologies Stafford Stafford, CT B 1.8
Rheo Engineering Peoria, IL B 1.8
Enercon Industries Menomonee Falls, WI B 1.8
Daeyoung Electronics USA Prosperity, SC B 1.7
Stratasys SDM (Belton) Belton, TX B 1.7
Fenton - KUKA Assembly and Test Corp. Fenton, MI B 1.7
Lawson Screen Products, Inc Saint Louis, MO B 1.7
Industrial Technologies Group (ITG) : Steelastic Cuyahoga Falls, OH B 1.7
Headquarters-Bensalem Bensalem, PA B 1.7
Milacron Mt. Orab Mount Orab, OH B 1.7
PFT-DAYTON Dayton, OH B 1.7
CDT-Brooklyn Park Brooklyn Park, MN B 1.7
Vanguard Pailung Monroe, NC B 1.7
Billco Manufacturing, Inc. Zelienople, PA B 1.7
Gaumard Scientific Miami, FL B 1.7
MMD Brooklyn Park, MN Brooklyn Park, MN B 1.7
Air Products and Chemicals Inc.-Cryomachinery Allentown, PA B 1.7
GERMANTOWN Germantown, OH A 1.6
Conair - Franklin Franklin, PA A 1.6
Membrane Technology and Research Newark, CA A 1.6
Parkland Milwaukee, WI A 1.6
Gerber Technology LLC Tolland, CT A 1.6
ECI Technology, Inc. Totowa, NJ A 1.6
Spring Green AG Spring Green, WI A 1.5
← Prev Page 7 of 10 Next →
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details. Retrieved and formatted by PlainSafetyScore Editorial

Verify with BLS →

Verify with OSHA →

Working in Chemical processing machinery and equipment manufacturing?

This sector averages 4.0 against a BLS benchmark of 3.3 - but individual employers span the full A-to-F range.

Sector figures use the credible-subset mean across reporting employers; a benchmark is not any single establishment's measured rate.

Every figure and grade on PlainSafetyScore is computed directly from OSHA's published Injury Tracking Application data and BLS industry benchmarks, no number is typed in by an editor. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these safety grades, or report a data error. Data current as of 2016-2024 OSHA ITA release.