Distribution of Stone Material Related Construction Material · Texas

Logistics Center La Porte

La Porte, TX · ~30 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
8.8
Avg TCR
2.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Logistics Center La Porte runs at 401% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Distribution of Stone Material Related Construction Material workplace, earning a grade F.

Logistics Center La Porte: 8.8 TCR = 401% of Distribution of Stone Material Related Construction Material BLS 2.2 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Logistics Center La Porte safety composite

Logistics Center La Porte scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 5%), 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).

F

18/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 8.83 per 100 workers

Safer than 9% of industry peers

DART rate
F 8.59 per 100 workers

Safer than 5% 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

−4.4

2020→2024

Logistics Center La Porte injury rate improved

Logistics Center La Porte's TCR fell 4.4 from 13.0 in 2020 to 8.6 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2020 at 13.0 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.97× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2020=13.0 · 2021=10.5 · 2022=9.2 · 2023=2.8 · 2024=8.6

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 423320 · La Porte, TX ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 8.8 · 401% of ind

  • DART 8.6 DART
  • RANK #16/17
  • PHOTO Haydon Materials Pav…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 12 inj
  • SIZE ~30 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Haydon Materials Paving (0.3 TCR gap)

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

Logistics Center La Porte in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Logistics Center La Porte averages 8.8 TCR (401% of the Distribution of Stone Material Related Construction Material BLS benchmark).

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

Logistics Center La Porte TCR series: 2020=13 · 2021=10.5 · 2022=9.2 · 2023=2.8 · 2024=8.6 · BLS 2.2

Where Logistics Center La Porte falls in its industry

158 Distribution of Stone Material establishments

Safer than 9% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.1.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Texas alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #16 safest of 17 Distribution of Stone Material employers in Texas.

Logistics Center La Porte (30 employees, TCR 8.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 42 employees and a TCR of 3.1 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 050100150200 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Logistics Center La Porte
Logistics Center La Porte (30 employees, TCR 8.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 42 employees and a TCR of 3.1

Logistics Center La Porte has fewer employees than the Distribution of Stone Material Related median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.1. 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 8.6 8.6 2 0 0
2023 2.8 2.8 1 0 0
2022 9.2 9.2 3 0 0
2021 10.5 10.5 3 0 0
2020 13.0 13.0 3 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

423320 · TX · La Porte

158 Distribution of Stone Material Related Construction Material employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 38,394 rated employers in Texas with headcount on file · 170 employers in La Porte, 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 Haydon Materials Paving 8.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Logistics Center Norfolk 9.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Conestoga Ceramic Tile Distributors, Inc.- Hanover, PA 9.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Cosentino Center Anaheim 7.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE BRAZOS RIVER SOD FARM 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE Coyote Lake Feeders LLC 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE Dimmitt Feedyard 30 FTE
STATE-SIZE Green Plains Cattle Company LLC - Hereford 30 FTE
CITY-NEAR Stronghold, Ltd. 2,821 FTE
CITY-NEAR Stronghold Specialty, Ltd. 1,662 FTE
CITY-NEAR TURN 2 Specialty Companies 1,384 FTE
CITY-NEAR Dashiell Corp/Dacon Corp 973 FTE
NAT-TCR The Pointe At Kilpatrick 8.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Peacock Suites 8.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Deschutes County Sheriff 8.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Sytech Inc 8.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Qspac Industries -Nc 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE CVGTX- Kinley Cincinatti 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE Silva & Sons Landscaping, LLC 30 FTE
NAT-SIZE Serco - New London,CT 30 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.