Engineering structure (e.g., oil storage tank, water tower) painting · Louisiana

Maintenance Protection Systems

Baton Rouge, LA · ~59 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
0.0
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Maintenance Protection Systems runs at 0% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Engineering structure (e.g., oil storage tank, water tower) painting workplace, earning a grade C.

Maintenance Protection Systems: 0.0 TCR = 0% of Engineering structure (e.g., oil storage tank, water tower) painting BLS 2.8 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Maintenance Protection Systems safety composite

Maintenance Protection Systems scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 100% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 51%), 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).

B

79/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 100% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 76% 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%).

Maintenance Protection Systems held a steady TCR band

Maintenance Protection Systems's TCR held near 0.0 from 0.0 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2019. Peak filing year was 2016 at 0.0 TCR.

2016=0.0 · 2017=0.0 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 238320 · Baton Rouge, LA AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 0.0 · 0% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #0/10
  • PHOTO Starr Commercial
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 0 inj
  • SIZE ~59 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Starr Commercial (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Maintenance Protection Systems in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Maintenance Protection Systems averages 0.0 TCR (0% of the Engineering structure (e.g., oil storage tank, water tower) painting BLS benchmark).

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

Maintenance Protection Systems TCR series: 2016=0 · 2017=0 · 2018=0 · 2019=0 · BLS 2.8

Where Maintenance Protection Systems falls in its industry

582 Engineering structure (e.g., o establishments

Safer than 100% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.8.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Louisiana alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #0 safest of 10 Engineering structure (e.g., o employers in Louisiana.

Maintenance Protection Systems (59 employees, TCR 0.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 48 employees and a TCR of 2.8 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 050100150200250 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Maintenance Protection Systems
Maintenance Protection Systems (59 employees, TCR 0.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 48 employees and a TCR of 2.8

Maintenance Protection Systems has more employees than the Engineering structure (e.g., oil storage median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.8. 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
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2016 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

238320 · LA · Baton Rouge

582 Engineering structure (e.g., oil storage tank, water tower) painting employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 6,723 rated employers in Louisiana with headcount on file · 781 employers in Baton Rouge, LA · 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 Starr Commercial 0.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Villa Rica Ga 81 0.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Home Office 0.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Construction 0.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE St. Tammany Service Center 59 FTE
STATE-SIZE Martco Construction LLC 59 FTE
STATE-SIZE The Migues Deloach Company LLC 59 FTE
STATE-SIZE EXCEL Maintenance @ Westlake Plaquemine 59 FTE
CITY-NEAR WEST REGION HEADQUARTERS 9,680 FTE
CITY-NEAR Brown & Root Industrial Services, LLC. 8,819 FTE
CITY-NEAR BATON ROUGE PACKERS 8,650 FTE
CITY-NEAR Baton Rouge 4,833 FTE
NAT-TCR Portsmouth NNSY Commissary 0.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Columbus Health and Rehab 0.0 TCR
NAT-TCR GeoCare, Inc. DBA Home Instead Senior Care 0.0 TCR
NAT-TCR TX-01 0.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE Meadow Gold Grand Junction - Grand Junction 59 FTE
NAT-SIZE Myersville04 59 FTE
NAT-SIZE Marinemax Northeast, Inc-Ny1 59 FTE
NAT-SIZE Hunter Keystone Peterbilt LP - Allentown 59 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: 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.