Warehouse clubs (i.e., food and general merchandise) · Texas

1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse

Cedar Park, TX · ~271 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
6.0
Avg TCR
3.4
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse runs at 177% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Warehouse clubs (i.e., food and general merchandise) workplace, earning a grade D.

1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse: 6.0 TCR = 177% of Warehouse clubs (i.e., food and general merchandise) BLS 3.4 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse safety composite

1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 62% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 29%), 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

46/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 6.01 per 100 workers

Safer than 29% of industry peers

DART rate
C 2.41 per 100 workers

Safer than 62% 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

−6.6

2016→2022

1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse injury rate improved

1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse's TCR fell 6.6 from 10.6 in 2016 to 4.0 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2016 at 10.6 TCR. In 2022, DART was 0.4× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=10.6 · 2017=7.0 · 2018=5.8 · 2019=3.9 · 2020=6.4 · 2021=4.4 · 2022=4.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 455211 · Cedar Park, TX ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade D · TCR 6.0 · 177% of ind

  • DART 2.4 DART
  • RANK #21/33
  • PHOTO 25320026 EDISON, NJ
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 88 inj
  • SIZE ~271 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: 25320026 EDISON, NJ (0.0 TCR gap)

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

1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows 1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse averages 6.0 TCR (177% of the Warehouse clubs (i.e., food and general merchandise) BLS benchmark).

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

1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse TCR series: 2016=10.6 · 2017=7 · 2018=5.8 · 2019=3.9 · 2020=6.4 · 2021=4.4 · 2022=4 · BLS 3.4

Where 1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse falls in its industry

1,491 Warehouse clubs (i.e., food an establishments

Safer than 29% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.8.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Texas alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #21 safest of 33 Warehouse clubs (i.e., food an employers in Texas.

1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse (271 employees, TCR 6.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 260 employees and a TCR of 4.8 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 100200300400500600 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate 1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse
1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse (271 employees, TCR 6.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 260 employees and a TCR of 4.8

1152 - Cedar Park Tx Whse has more employees than the Warehouse clubs (i.e., food and general median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.8. 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 4.0 2.4 10 0 0
2021 4.4 4.4 10 0 0
2020 6.4 5.5 14 0 0
2019 3.9 3.4 8 0 0
2018 5.8 4.9 12 0 0
2017 7.0 7.0 14 0 0
2016 10.6 10.6 20 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

455211 · TX · Cedar Park

1,491 Warehouse clubs (i.e., food and general merchandise) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 38,394 rated employers in Texas with headcount on file · 94 employers in Cedar Park, TX · 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 25320026 EDISON, NJ 6.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR 0479 - CULVER CITY CA WHSE 6.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR 701-00060 6.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR 701-00218 6.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE JBS Live Pork LLC. Dalhart 271 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sandbox Transportation LLC 271 FTE
STATE-SIZE Toro Bravo Construction 271 FTE
STATE-SIZE HUNTON SERVICES 271 FTE
CITY-NEAR Cedar Park Regional Medical Center 392 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2991 344 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 2991 314 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2342 - Cedar Park 306 FTE
NAT-TCR 0479 - Culver City Ca Whse 6.0 TCR
NAT-TCR 6458-ZGRI 6.0 TCR
NAT-TCR 8342 Carrier Florida 6.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Kenn-Feld Group-Archbold 6.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE 0373 - Independence Mo Whse 271 FTE
NAT-SIZE 1088 - Bolingbrook Il Whse 271 FTE
NAT-SIZE 0317 - Lancaster Pa Whse 271 FTE
NAT-SIZE 0230 - Holbrook Ny Whse 271 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, 2021, 2020, 2019, 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.