Electroplating metals and formed products for the trade · California

Continuous Coating Corporation

Orange, CA · ~85 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
6.6
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Continuous Coating Corporation runs at 199% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Electroplating metals and formed products for the trade workplace, earning a grade D.

Continuous Coating Corporation: 6.6 TCR = 199% of Electroplating metals and formed products for the trade BLS 3.3 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Continuous Coating Corporation safety composite

Continuous Coating Corporation scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 22%), 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

31/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 6.56 per 100 workers

Safer than 22% of industry peers

DART rate
F 3.58 per 100 workers

Safer than 28% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Continuous Coating Corporation: 6.5 → 7.2 TCR

Peak year 2021 @ 10.1 TCR · DART/TCR 0.55× in 2023

Continuous Coating Corporation's TCR rose 0.7 from 6.5 in 2017 to 7.2 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2021 at 10.1 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0.55× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 332813 · Orange, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 6.6 · 199% of ind

  • DART 3.6 DART
  • RANK #59/74
  • PHOTO B&M Finishers Inc
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 37 inj
  • SIZE ~85 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: B&M Finishers Inc (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Continuous Coating Corporation in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Continuous Coating Corporation averages 6.6 TCR (199% of the Electroplating metals and formed products for the trade BLS benchmark).

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

Continuous Coating Corporation TCR series: 2017=6.5 · 2018=7.6 · 2019=6.6 · 2020=6.1 · 2021=10.1 · 2022=1.9 · 2023=7.2 · BLS 3.3

Where Continuous Coating Corporation falls in its industry

585 Electroplating metals and form establishments

Safer than 22% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #59 safest of 74 Electroplating metals and form employers in California.

Continuous Coating Corporation (85 employees, TCR 6.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 4.0 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 0200400600 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Continuous Coating Corporation
Continuous Coating Corporation (85 employees, TCR 6.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 4.0

Continuous Coating Corporation has more employees than the Electroplating metals and formed product median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.0. 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
2023 7.2 3.6 4 4 0
2022 1.9 1.9 2 0 0
2021 10.1 10.1 8 0 0
2020 6.1 4.9 5 0 0
2019 6.6 4.4 6 0 0
2018 7.6 4.3 6 1 0
2017 6.5 6.5 6 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

332813 · CA · Orange

585 Electroplating metals and formed products for the trade employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 319 employers in Orange, CA · 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 B&M Finishers Inc 6.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Technical Plating 6.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Precision Spray and Coatings, LLC 6.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR A&H Duffy Polishing and Finishing Company 6.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE Gallo Vineyards, Inc. 85 FTE
STATE-SIZE Roche Brothers Inc. 85 FTE
STATE-SIZE Village Nurseries Pauma Valley Yard 85 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sunlet Nursery, Inc. 85 FTE
CITY-NEAR UC Irvine Health 6,191 FTE
CITY-NEAR CHOC - CHildren's Hospital of Orange County 4,962 FTE
CITY-NEAR CHOC Children's Orange 3,693 FTE
CITY-NEAR CHOC Children's Orange V2 3,652 FTE
NAT-TCR Big Lots Store #1389 N. MYRTLE BEACH, SC 6.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Caley Ridge Assisted Living 6.6 TCR
NAT-TCR The Forum at Brookside 6.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Ag Express Inc 6.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Buffalo Engine Components, Inc. 85 FTE
NAT-SIZE NJ CBS Montvale 85 FTE
NAT-SIZE Kane Hardwood 85 FTE
NAT-SIZE Classic Healthcare Systems dba Franklin Ridge 85 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: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.