Communication tower construction · California

Wireless Infrastructure Services

Corona, CA · ~23 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.9
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Wireless Infrastructure Services runs at 176% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Communication tower construction workplace, earning a grade D.

Wireless Infrastructure Services: 4.9 TCR = 176% of Communication tower construction BLS 2.8 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Wireless Infrastructure Services safety composite

Wireless Infrastructure Services scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 78% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 21%), 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).

D

49/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 4.93 per 100 workers

Safer than 21% 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%).

TCR Δ

−7.8

2017→2021

Wireless Infrastructure Services injury rate improved

Wireless Infrastructure Services's TCR fell 7.8 from 7.8 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2019 at 9.4 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=7.8 · 2018=3.4 · 2019=9.4 · 2020=4.1 · 2021=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 237130 · Corona, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 4.9 · 176% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #102/147
  • PHOTO TB Flats Wind 1814…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 6 inj
  • SIZE ~23 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: TB Flats Wind 18141013 (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Wireless Infrastructure Services in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Wireless Infrastructure Services averages 4.9 TCR (176% of the Communication tower construction BLS benchmark).

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

Wireless Infrastructure Services TCR series: 2017=7.8 · 2018=3.4 · 2019=9.4 · 2020=4.1 · 2021=0 · BLS 2.8

Where Wireless Infrastructure Services falls in its industry

1,605 Communication tower constructi establishments

Safer than 21% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #102 safest of 147 Communication tower constructi employers in California.

Wireless Infrastructure Services (23 employees, TCR 4.9) 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 Wireless Infrastructure Services
Wireless Infrastructure Services (23 employees, TCR 4.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 74 employees and a TCR of 2.0

Wireless Infrastructure Services has fewer employees than the Communication tower construction median and a higher 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
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 4.1 4.1 1 0 0
2019 9.4 6.3 2 1 0
2018 3.4 3.4 1 0 0
2017 7.8 3.9 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

237130 · CA · Corona

1,605 Communication tower construction employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 409 employers in Corona, 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 TB Flats Wind 18141013 4.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR SGT:SG002 - SG002-Sage-Ft. Collins, CO 4.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR NA-US-CA-San Luis Obispo-Archer Street 4.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR ANS:ANATH - ANATH-Gainesville, GA 4.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE James Diedrich Farms 23 FTE
STATE-SIZE Tri-Fanucchi Farms,LLC 23 FTE
STATE-SIZE KAN2 - 04 23 FTE
STATE-SIZE Kyer Farms 23 FTE
CITY-NEAR Monster Energy Company 2535 Anselmo Dr 2,572 FTE
CITY-NEAR Monster Energy Company 2,388 FTE
CITY-NEAR Monster Energy Company - Anselmo Dr, Corona 2,335 FTE
CITY-NEAR California Department of Transportation Facility 289 1,587 FTE
NAT-TCR ALCO Doors 4.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Suburban Manufacturing Group 4.9 TCR
NAT-TCR 47 RCT Hanover 4.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Empire Cheese Inc. 4.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE MineARC Systems America 23 FTE
NAT-SIZE Ryerson - Jacksonville 23 FTE
NAT-SIZE XXL DBA McKenzie/Taylor Construction 23 FTE
NAT-SIZE V1-Chesapeake 23 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: 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.