Utility line (i.e., sewer, water), construction · California

G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc.

Napa, CA · ~27 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
3.2
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc. runs at 114% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Utility line (i.e., sewer, water), construction workplace, earning a grade C.

G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc.: 3.2 TCR = 114% of Utility line (i.e., sewer, water), construction BLS 2.8 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc. safety composite

G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc. scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 79% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 47%), 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

59/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 3.2 per 100 workers

Safer than 47% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 79% 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%).

TCR Δ

−4.6

2017→2022

G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc. injury rate improved

G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc.'s TCR fell 4.6 from 4.6 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2017 at 4.6 TCR. In 2022, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=4.6 · 2020=3.9 · 2021=4.2 · 2022=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 237110 · Napa, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 3.2 · 114% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #104/201
  • PHOTO Bedford Regional Wat…
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 4 inj
  • SIZE ~27 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Bedford Regional Water Authority (0.0 TCR gap)

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

G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc. in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc. averages 3.2 TCR (114% of the Utility line (i.e., sewer, water), construction BLS benchmark).

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

G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc. TCR series: 2017=4.6 · 2020=3.9 · 2021=4.2 · 2022=0 · BLS 2.8

Where G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc. falls in its industry

1,614 Utility line (i.e., sewer, wat establishments

Safer than 47% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #104 safest of 201 Utility line (i.e., sewer, wat employers in California.

G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc. (27 employees, TCR 3.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 54 employees and a TCR of 3.0 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 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc.
G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc. (27 employees, TCR 3.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 54 employees and a TCR of 3.0

G.D. Nielson Construction, Inc. has fewer employees than the Utility line (i.e., sewer, water), const median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.0. 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
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 4.2 4.2 1 0 0
2020 3.9 3.9 1 0 0
2017 4.6 4.6 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

237110 · CA · Napa

1,614 Utility line (i.e., sewer, water), construction employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 186 employers in Napa, 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 Bedford Regional Water Authority 3.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Sanders Utility Construction Co., Inc. 3.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR SCW Contracting Corporation 3.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Oscar Renda Contracting Inc.-Company Wide 3.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE HQ 27 FTE
STATE-SIZE Medeiros Farms Vineyards 27 FTE
STATE-SIZE SAND RANCH 27 FTE
STATE-SIZE San Bernabe Vineyards 27 FTE
CITY-NEAR California Department of Transportation Facility 532 2,891 FTE
CITY-NEAR Department of State Hospitals-Napa 2,248 FTE
CITY-NEAR Napa County 1,545 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2004-00001420 1,142 FTE
NAT-TCR NFK/NSS-ODFL 3.2 TCR
NAT-TCR PSSI - 0031 JBS USA - Marshalltown 3.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Txpha - Miles Pharr 3.2 TCR
NAT-TCR 744 - Oak Park Heights 3.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Iowa Illinois Taylor Insulation Contracting 1 27 FTE
NAT-SIZE Bowman Auto Center 27 FTE
NAT-SIZE Vriesland 27 FTE
NAT-SIZE Brookdale Berkeley Boulevard 27 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: 2022, 2021, 2020, 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.