Powder coating metals and metal products for the trade · Texas

Jindal Saw USA LLC

Baytown, TX · ~254 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
2.2
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
1
Fatality
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Jindal Saw USA LLC runs at 68% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Powder coating metals and metal products for the trade workplace, earning a grade B.

Jindal Saw USA LLC: 2.2 TCR = 68% of Powder coating metals and metal products for the trade BLS 3.3 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Jindal Saw USA LLC safety composite

Jindal Saw USA LLC scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 73% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 1%), 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

51/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 2.24 per 100 workers

Safer than 73% of industry peers

DART rate
C 0.61 per 100 workers

Safer than 61% of industry peers

Fatalities
F 1

Safer than 1% 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

−3.6

2016→2024

Jindal Saw USA LLC injury rate improved

Jindal Saw USA LLC's TCR fell 3.6 from 4.5 in 2016 to 0.9 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2016 at 4.5 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.27× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=4.5 · 2017=2.1 · 2018=2.4 · 2019=0.3 · 2020=1.5 · 2021=2.5 · 2022=2.9 · 2023=3.1 · 2024=0.9

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332812 · Baytown, TX AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade B · TCR 2.2 · 68% of ind

  • DART 0.6 DART
  • RANK #29/69
  • PHOTO QuantumClean - Color…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 57 inj
  • SIZE ~254 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: QuantumClean - Colorado Springs (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Jindal Saw USA LLC in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Jindal Saw USA LLC averages 2.2 TCR (68% of the Powder coating metals and metal products for the trade BLS benchmark).

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

Jindal Saw USA LLC TCR series: 2016=4.5 · 2017=2.1 · 2018=2.4 · 2019=0.3 · 2020=1.5 · 2021=2.5 · 2022=2.9 · 2023=3.1 · 2024=0.9 · BLS 3.3

Where Jindal Saw USA LLC falls in its industry

646 Powder coating metals and meta establishments

Safer than 73% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Texas alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #29 safest of 69 Powder coating metals and meta employers in Texas.

Jindal Saw USA LLC (254 employees, TCR 2.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 58 employees and a TCR of 3.9 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 0200400600 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Jindal Saw USA LLC
Jindal Saw USA LLC (254 employees, TCR 2.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 58 employees and a TCR of 3.9

Jindal Saw USA LLC has more employees than the Powder coating metals and metal products median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.9. 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
2024 0.9 0.6 3 0 0
2023 3.1 1.7 11 0 0
2022 2.9 2.6 11 0 0
2021 2.5 2.1 6 0 0
2020 1.5 1.0 3 0 0
2019 0.3 0.3 1 0 0
2018 2.4 1.7 7 0 1
2017 2.1 2.1 5 0 0
2016 4.5 4.5 10 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332812 · TX · Baytown

646 Powder coating metals and metal products for the trade employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 38,394 rated employers in Texas with headcount on file · 247 employers in Baytown, 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 QuantumClean - Colorado Springs 2.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Mebane, NC - MK Plant 19 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Spartan Steel Coating 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Innovative Coatings Technology Corporation 2.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE ENERGEN DISTRICT OFFICE 254 FTE
STATE-SIZE Pleasanton TX 254 FTE
STATE-SIZE Austin Industries Travis Office 254 FTE
STATE-SIZE Britt Rice Electric, L.P. 254 FTE
CITY-NEAR North American Growth Olefins Recovery Project 2,988 FTE
CITY-NEAR Houston Methodist Baytown Hospital 1,920 FTE
CITY-NEAR ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery 1,328 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 7042 1,288 FTE
NAT-TCR NCP Cambridge 2.2 TCR
NAT-TCR 150-Mobile 2.2 TCR
NAT-TCR The Fresh Market 140 2.2 TCR
NAT-TCR AIRCRAFT GEAR CORPORATION - Plant 2 2.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE R+L Carriers - PHI 254 FTE
NAT-SIZE Windfall Industries 254 FTE
NAT-SIZE Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Tustin 254 FTE
NAT-SIZE Kodiak Aircraft Company (formerly Quest Aircraft Co) 254 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, 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.