Utility line (i.e., communication, electric power), construction · Florida

Bayside Power Station

Tampa, FL · ~71 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.9
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Bayside Power Station runs at 33% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Utility line (i.e., communication, electric power), construction workplace, earning a grade A.

Bayside Power Station: 0.9 TCR = 33% of Utility line (i.e., communication, electric power), construction BLS 2.8 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Bayside Power Station safety composite

Bayside Power Station scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 78% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 52%), 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).

C

71/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 0.91 per 100 workers

Safer than 77% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 78% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 52% 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%).

Bayside Power Station held a steady TCR band

Bayside Power Station's TCR held near 0.0 from 0.0 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2017 at 5.2 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=0.0 · 2017=5.2 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=3.0 · 2020=0.0 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 237130 · Tampa, FL AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 0.9 · 33% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #28/98
  • PHOTO Southern Electric Co…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 1 inj
  • SIZE ~71 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Southern Electric Corporation of Mississippi (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Bayside Power Station in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Bayside Power Station averages 0.9 TCR (33% of the Utility line (i.e., communication, electric power), construction BLS benchmark).

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

Bayside Power Station TCR series: 2016=0 · 2017=5.2 · 2018=0 · 2019=3 · 2020=0 · 2021=0 · 2022=0 · 2023=0 · 2024=0 · BLS 2.8

Where Bayside Power Station falls in its industry

1,605 Utility line (i.e., communicat establishments

Safer than 77% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Florida alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #28 safest of 98 Utility line (i.e., communicat employers in Florida.

Bayside Power Station (71 employees, TCR 0.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 74 employees and a TCR of 2.0 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 0100200300400500 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Bayside Power Station
Bayside Power Station (71 employees, TCR 0.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 74 employees and a TCR of 2.0

Bayside Power Station has fewer employees than the Utility line (i.e., communication, elect median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.0. 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 3.0 0.0 1 1 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 5.2 0.0 0 3 0
2016 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

237130 · FL · Tampa

1,605 Utility line (i.e., communication, electric power), construction employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 26,569 rated employers in Florida with headcount on file · 1,659 employers in Tampa, FL · 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 Southern Electric Corporation of Mississippi 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR 7102133 FPL Wild Azalea 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Honor Construction LLC 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Comtrac 0.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE Potato 71 FTE
STATE-SIZE DESOTO HARVESTING 71 FTE
STATE-SIZE Egan Fruit Packing LLC 71 FTE
STATE-SIZE Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP 71 FTE
CITY-NEAR Diversified Maintenance Systems LLC 10,600 FTE
CITY-NEAR Tampa General Hospital 7,849 FTE
CITY-NEAR Valet Living, LLC 6,337 FTE
CITY-NEAR ST. Joseph's Hospital (5100) 5,540 FTE
NAT-TCR SA Recycling, Montebello 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Montana Power Station 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR B&D Industrial 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corp. Middletown Works 0.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE Fosbel Wahl 71 FTE
NAT-SIZE John Evans' Sons, Incorporated 71 FTE
NAT-SIZE Premier Logistics Solutions Warehousing, LLC 71 FTE
NAT-SIZE UFP Eagan LLC DBA Packnet Ltd. 71 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.