Distribution of electric power · South Carolina

Field Services Tech Building (Columbia)

Cayce, SC · ~25 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.4
Avg TCR
1.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Field Services Tech Building (Columbia) runs at 35% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Distribution of electric power workplace, earning a grade A.

Field Services Tech Building (Columbia): 0.4 TCR = 35% of Distribution of electric power BLS 1.2 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Field Services Tech Building (Columbia) safety composite

Field Services Tech Building (Columbia) scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 94% 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

78/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0.42 per 100 workers

Safer than 94% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 79% 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%).

TCR Δ

−3.4

2017→2024

Field Services Tech Building (Columbia) injury rate improved

Field Services Tech Building (Columbia)'s TCR fell 3.4 from 3.4 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2017 at 3.4 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=3.4 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=0.0 · 2020=0.0 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 221122 · Cayce, SC AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 0.4 · 35% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #11/86
  • PHOTO Burgaw
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 1 inj
  • SIZE ~25 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Burgaw (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Field Services Tech Building (Columbia) in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Field Services Tech Building (Columbia) averages 0.4 TCR (35% of the Distribution of electric power BLS benchmark).

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

Field Services Tech Building (Columbia) TCR series: 2017=3.4 · 2018=0 · 2019=0 · 2020=0 · 2021=0 · 2022=0 · 2023=0 · 2024=0 · BLS 1.2

Where Field Services Tech Building (Columbia) falls in its industry

2,958 Distribution of electric power establishments

Safer than 94% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to South Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #11 safest of 86 Distribution of electric power employers in South Carolina.

Field Services Tech Building (Columbia) (25 employees, TCR 0.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 2.5 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 05001,0001,5002,000 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Field Services Tech Building (Columbia)
Field Services Tech Building (Columbia) (25 employees, TCR 0.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 2.5

Field Services Tech Building (Columbia) has fewer employees than the Distribution of electric power median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.5. 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 3.4 0.0 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

221122 · SC · Cayce

2,958 Distribution of electric power employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,610 rated employers in South Carolina with headcount on file · 46 employers in Cayce, SC · 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 Burgaw 0.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Bloomington Operations Center 0.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Dolan Lab 0.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Entergy LR 9th & LA 0.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE Clemson Operations Center 25 FTE
STATE-SIZE Fort Mill Operations Center 25 FTE
STATE-SIZE Repairs 25 FTE
STATE-SIZE Fraser Construction Company 25 FTE
CITY-NEAR HISTORIC COLUMBIA SPEEDWAY 863 FTE
CITY-NEAR Corporate Headquarters 606 FTE
CITY-NEAR CMC Steel South Carolina 418 FTE
CITY-NEAR OPERATIONS SUPPORT CENTER 293 FTE
NAT-TCR Sealed Air Madera Manufacturing 0.4 TCR
NAT-TCR KenMor : KenMor - Houston 0.4 TCR
NAT-TCR PJ Green Inc 0.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Beekley Corporation 0.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Timberworks 25 FTE
NAT-SIZE Mid-Central Door Company 25 FTE
NAT-SIZE ROSEBURG 25 FTE
NAT-SIZE Casa Cristal Nursery, Inc. 25 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.

Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.