Architectural block, concrete (e.g., fluted, ground face, screen, slump, split), manufacturing · Pennsylvania

Pen Argyl Plant

Pen Argyl, PA · ~113 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.7
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Pen Argyl Plant runs at 142% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Architectural block, concrete (e.g., fluted, ground face, screen, slump, split), manufacturing workplace, earning a grade D.

Pen Argyl Plant: 4.7 TCR = 142% of Architectural block, concrete (e.g., fluted, ground face, screen, slump, split), manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Pen Argyl Plant safety composite

Pen Argyl Plant scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 26%), 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

39/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 4.68 per 100 workers

Safer than 43% of industry peers

DART rate
F 4.4 per 100 workers

Safer than 26% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Pen Argyl Plant: 4.0 → 5.3 TCR

Peak year 2021 @ 5.5 TCR · DART/TCR 0.94× in 2024

Pen Argyl Plant's TCR rose 1.3 from 4.0 in 2020 to 5.3 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2021 at 5.5 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.94× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 327331 · Pen Argyl, PA ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade D · TCR 4.7 · 142% of ind

  • DART 4.4 DART
  • RANK #7/15
  • PHOTO Beavertown Block Co.…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 28 inj
  • SIZE ~113 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Beavertown Block Co. Inc. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Pen Argyl Plant in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Pen Argyl Plant averages 4.7 TCR (142% of the Architectural block, concrete (e.g., fluted, ground face, screen, slump, split), manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Pen Argyl Plant TCR series: 2020=4 · 2021=5.5 · 2022=5.3 · 2023=3.3 · 2024=5.3 · BLS 3.3

Where Pen Argyl Plant falls in its industry

321 Architectural block, concrete establishments

Safer than 43% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.1.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Pennsylvania alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #7 safest of 15 Architectural block, concrete employers in Pennsylvania.

Pen Argyl Plant (113 employees, TCR 4.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 42 employees and a TCR of 4.1 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 0100200300 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Pen Argyl Plant
Pen Argyl Plant (113 employees, TCR 4.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 42 employees and a TCR of 4.1

Pen Argyl Plant has more employees than the Architectural block, concrete (e.g., flu median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.1. 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 5.3 4.4 6 0 0
2023 3.3 3.3 4 0 0
2022 5.3 4.5 7 0 0
2021 5.5 4.0 7 0 0
2020 4.0 4.0 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

327331 · PA · Pen Argyl

321 Architectural block, concrete (e.g., fluted, ground face, screen, slump, split), manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,692 rated employers in Pennsylvania with headcount on file · 13 employers in Pen Argyl, PA · 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 Beavertown Block Co. Inc. 4.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Kentwood Brick & Tile Manufacturing Co. Inc. 4.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Riverside Plant 4.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Marathon 4.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Constellation Power Labs 113 FTE
STATE-SIZE The Hain Celestial Group. South Tree 113 FTE
STATE-SIZE FARMER BOY AG INC 113 FTE
STATE-SIZE Conway Phillips Holding, LLC 113 FTE
CITY-NEAR S03011 - Grand Central Sanitation 165 FTE
CITY-NEAR 164 151 FTE
CITY-NEAR Pen Argyl 009 61 FTE
CITY-NEAR NAPA Development Corp, Inc. 39 FTE
NAT-TCR Maryland West 4.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Flextech Industries, LTD. 4.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Cleveland Clinic Main Campus 4.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Dfa Ice Cream - St George Ut 4.7 TCR
NAT-SIZE AMC Concrete Inc 113 FTE
NAT-SIZE Festival Foods Hugo 113 FTE
NAT-SIZE J-M Foods, LLC 113 FTE
NAT-SIZE Tosca - Portage 113 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.