Marine cargo handling services · California

Concord Naval Weapons Stations

San Pedro, CA · ~35 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
6.8
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Concord Naval Weapons Stations runs at 152% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Marine cargo handling services workplace, earning a grade D.

Concord Naval Weapons Stations: 6.8 TCR = 152% of Marine cargo handling services BLS 4.5 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Concord Naval Weapons Stations safety composite

Concord Naval Weapons Stations scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 87% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 31%), 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)
F 6.84 per 100 workers

Safer than 31% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 87% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 53% 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

−3.0

2017→2023

Concord Naval Weapons Stations injury rate improved

Concord Naval Weapons Stations's TCR fell 3.0 from 12.1 in 2017 to 9.1 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2018 at 16.2 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=12.1 · 2018=16.2 · 2019=0.0 · 2020=0.3 · 2021=10.2 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=9.1

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 488320 · San Pedro, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 6.8 · 152% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #49/65
  • PHOTO Port Newark Auto Ter…
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 10 inj
  • SIZE ~35 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Port Newark Auto Terminal (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Concord Naval Weapons Stations in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Concord Naval Weapons Stations averages 6.8 TCR (152% of the Marine cargo handling services BLS benchmark).

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

Concord Naval Weapons Stations TCR series: 2017=12.1 · 2018=16.2 · 2019=0 · 2020=0.3 · 2021=10.2 · 2022=0 · 2023=9.1 · BLS 4.5

Where Concord Naval Weapons Stations falls in its industry

391 Marine cargo handling services establishments

Safer than 31% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.8.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #49 safest of 65 Marine cargo handling services employers in California.

Concord Naval Weapons Stations (35 employees, TCR 6.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 76 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 05001,0001,500 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Concord Naval Weapons Stations
Concord Naval Weapons Stations (35 employees, TCR 6.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 76 employees and a TCR of 4.8

Concord Naval Weapons Stations has fewer employees than the Marine cargo handling services 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
2023 9.1 0.0 0 1 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 10.2 10.2 1 0 0
2020 0.3 0.3 3 0 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 16.2 16.2 4 0 0
2017 12.1 8.1 2 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

488320 · CA · San Pedro

391 Marine cargo handling services employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 81 employers in San Pedro, CA · 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 Port Newark Auto Terminal 6.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Nashville Avenue 6.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR GulfPort 6.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Federal Marine Terminals of Albany 6.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE CONSTRUCTION FABRICATION/CARPENTRY/PAINTING/ELECTRIC/PIPE 35 FTE
STATE-SIZE Meek Ranches LLC 35 FTE
STATE-SIZE Dresick Farms, Inc. - Farm 35 FTE
STATE-SIZE Wolfsen Inc 35 FTE
CITY-NEAR APM Terminals Pacific LLC 1,638 FTE
CITY-NEAR WBCT Terminal 1,252 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2252-00000772 1,111 FTE
CITY-NEAR WCTSLB 1,078 FTE
NAT-TCR S04117 - Chestnut Ridge Landfill 6.8 TCR
NAT-TCR OS2 6.8 TCR
NAT-TCR AUC-Brunswick 6.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Big E's Foodland, Inc. 6.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Franklin Building Supply - Twin Falls 35 FTE
NAT-SIZE Lummus Corporation- Lubbock 35 FTE
NAT-SIZE Conquest USA, Inc. 35 FTE
NAT-SIZE CEP Technologies Corporation 35 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: 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.