Industry profile · NAICS 326150

Polyurethane foam products manufacturing

Workplace injury rates across 498 OSHA-reporting establishments in this industry, 2016–2024.

498
Employers
3.9
Avg TCR
3.3
BLS benchmark
6,523
Injuries

The industry picture

Employers in Polyurethane foam products manufacturing average 3.9 recordable injuries per 100 workers, 1.2 times the BLS national benchmark of 3.3.

3.9
avg TCR · reporting employers
3.3
BLS national benchmark
498
employers reporting
6,523
recordable injuries

OSHA-reporting establishments skew toward larger, higher-hazard sites, so the reporting average runs above the BLS all-establishment benchmark.

What Polyurethane foam products manufacturing Safety Data Reveals

The Polyurethane foam products manufacturing sector (NAICS 326150) encompasses 498 distinct employer establishments currently reporting to OSHA's Injury Tracking Application. Across this cohort, workers have logged 6,523 recordable injuries during the 2016–2024 reporting window, producing an industry-weighted average Total Case Rate (TCR) of 3.9 injuries per 100 full-time workers per year. Because OSHA's ITA mandates submission from establishments with 250+ employees plus all high-hazard industries at 20+ employees, this dataset represents a structural slice of U.S. workplace risk rather than a voluntary sample.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a separate national benchmark TCR of 3.3 for this NAICS code, derived from the BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. Comparing the two, the ITA-reported rate of 3.9 is higher than the BLS benchmark, a gap that typically widens when the industry contains many large, high-exposure establishments required to file ITA reports. Employers in the table below are sorted so you can see how far individual establishments deviate from both the industry average and the national benchmark.

The practical value of industry-level safety data is threefold. First, jobseekers can gauge whether a prospective employer is better or worse than its industry peers, not just absolute injury counts, which tilt toward larger payrolls. Second, insurers and workers' compensation carriers use sector TCR as a baseline for experience-modification adjustments. Third, safety professionals benchmark their own programs against the cohort median. Use the grade-sorted employer list below to identify specific establishments within Polyurethane foam products manufacturing that outperform or underperform the sector average, and click through to each record for year-by-year injury, illness, and fatality breakdowns.

Employers in this industry, by injury rate

Page 5 of 10
Employer LocationGradeAvg TCR
Hunter Panels - Smithfield, PA Smithfield, PA C 3.6
FXI, Inc. - High Point High Point, NC C 3.6
Sylacauga Alabama Plant Sylacauga, AL C 3.5
American Poly-Foam Hayward, CA C 3.5
Crest Foam Corp Houston, MS C 3.5
Anoka (BP) Anoka, MN C 3.5
US Blanks, LLC Gardena, CA C 3.5
Porex Technologies Corporation-Michigan St. Charles, MI C 3.5
Dongsung FInetec International, INC Lake Charles, LA C 3.5
Grand Rapids Foam Technologies Wyoming, MI C 3.4
Bridgestone APM FPD Plant #3 Upper Sandusky, OH C 3.4
Newnan-Christopher Ct Newnan, GA C 3.4
Rogers Corporation EMS-W Woodstock, CT C 3.4
FoamPartner - Piedmont Piedmont, SC C 3.4
Diab Americas LP Desoto, TX C 3.4
Fogelsville Pouring Plant Fogelsville, PA C 3.4
Innocor Foam Technologies - ACP, Inc. - Archbald Archbald, PA C 3.4
Future Foam - Plant 12 West Valley City, UT C 3.4
Pak-Lite, Inc. Commerce Commerce, GA C 3.3
Elite Comfort Solutions Verona, MS C 3.3
Austin Urethane, LLC Americus, GA C 3.3
Jacksonville (BP) Jacksonville, FL C 3.3
Leggett & Platt - Berwick Berwick, PA C 3.2
Ecs-Christopher Newnan, GA C 3.2
Greer (Polyiso) Greer, SC C 3.2
Dalton Foam Resaca, GA C 3.2
Creative Foam - Fenway Fenton, MI C 3.2
Keystone Foam Manufacturing plant Derry, PA C 3.2
LPCC - Ontario Rebond Ontario, CA C 3.2
Woodbridge Corporation Riverside, MO C 3.2
Exemplary Foam Elkhart, IN C 3.2
ICP - Tomball Tomball, TX C 3.2
Creative Foam - Bremen Bremen, IN C 3.1
Ohio Genadenhutten, OH C 3.1
Interstate Foam & Supply, Inc. Plant 3 Conover, NC C 3.1
FXI-Baldwyn Baldwyn, MS C 3.1
Accessible Products Company Tempe, AZ C 3.1
East Moline IIllinois East Moline, IL C 3.1
Future Foam, Inc- Plant 03 Middleton, WI C 3.1
Future Foam, Inc.- Plant 15 Middleton, WI C 3.1
Woodbridge Chattanooga Formed Plastics Chattanooga, TN C 3.1
ICP BSG Tomball Plant Tomball, TX C 3.1
Soundcoat - Deer Park Deer Park, NY C 3.0
Foamcraft Greenfield Greenfield, IN C 3.0
Premier Foam New Albany, MS C 3.0
Rmax - Fernley Fernley, NV C 3.0
SWD Urethane Mesa, AZ C 3.0
Elite Comfort Solutions - Conover Foam Conover, NC C 3.0
Fce3-Foam-Elkhart 3 Elkhart, IN C 3.0
UFP Technologies Georgetown Georgetown, MA C 3.0
← Prev Page 5 of 10 Next →
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details. Retrieved and formatted by PlainSafetyScore Editorial

Verify with BLS →

Verify with OSHA →

Working in Polyurethane foam products manufacturing?

This sector averages 3.9 against a BLS benchmark of 3.3 - but individual employers span the full A-to-F range.

Sector figures use the credible-subset mean across reporting employers; a benchmark is not any single establishment's measured rate.

Every figure and grade on PlainSafetyScore is computed directly from OSHA's published Injury Tracking Application data and BLS industry benchmarks, no number is typed in by an editor. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these safety grades, or report a data error. Data current as of 2016-2024 OSHA ITA release.