Opinion ID: 2314274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the prior violations

Text: At the evidentiary hearing Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MOSHA) introduced three prior citations for Bethlehem's violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.303(b)(1) [1] . That provision is a subsection of § 1910.303 which provides, in relevant part: General requirements. (a) Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this subpart shall be acceptable only if approved. (b) Examination, installation, and use of equipment (1) Examination. Electrical equipment shall be free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. Safety of equipment shall be determined using the following considerations: (i) Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the provisions of this subpart. Suitability of equipment for an identified purpose may be evidenced by listing or labeling for that identified purpose. (ii) Mechanical strength and durability, including, for parts designed to enclose and protect other equipment, the adequacy of the protection thus provided. (iii) Electrical insulation. (iv) Heating effects under conditions of use. (v) Arcing effects. (vi) Classification by type, size, voltage, current capacity, specific use. (vii) Other factors which contribute to the practical safeguarding of employees using or likely to come in contact with the equipment. (Emphasis added). Section 1910.303(b)(1) is a standard designed to prevent the hazard of electric shocks that are capable of causing death or serious physical harm. The standard seems to require two related duties of an employer. First, prior to installing electrical equipment, an employer should verify that the equipment is free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Second, electrical equipment with recognized hazards that are capable of causing death or serious physical harm should be made safe; this is the portion of the standard at issue in the instant case as well as in the prior violations. There may also be a third duty under this subsection that may require an employer to conduct reasonable inspections of electrical equipment. In addition to the violations at issue in the instant case, Bethlehem was also charged with failure to inspect the toaster oven. The Commissioner of Labor and Industry found that this violation was not proven. In his written opinion, the Commissioner stated: There is no other evidence [about inspections]. Accordingly, the Commissioner concludes that MOSH failed to show a failure to inspect. What the instant citation and the prior citations charged, however, was the failure to abate recognized hazards, not the failure to inspect electrical equipment. Bethlehem had been issued three citations prior to the citation at issue. Each of those prior citations was issued for violating the same standard as the citation in the instant case. Taking the prior citations in inverse chronological order, the third prior citation was for a violation on May 14, 1990. The violation charged: 29 CFR 1910.303(b)(1): Electrical equipment was not free from recognized hazards that were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. The equipment listed in the violations was two overhead bridge cranes and the conditions were 250 volt main hoist panel wiring was found to be dry rotted and 250 volt power lead wiring in rear of bridge panel box was found to be frayed and dry rotted. The second prior citation was for a violation occurring on August 4, 1988. The violation charged was: 29 CFR 1910.303(b)(1): Electrical equipment was not free from recognized hazards that were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. The equipment listed was two 440 volt electric motors and the condition was (2) floor mounted electric motors are exposed to water & chemical solution that may become energized. The first prior citation was for a violation occurring on October 6, 1987. The violation charged was: 29 CFR 1910.303(b)(1): Electrical equipment was not free from recognized hazards that were likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. The equipment involved was three overhead bridge cranes and the conditions were main hoist panel wiring was found to be dry rotted and corroded, bridge panel wiring was improperly spliced, and bridge panel wiring was found to be dry rotted and corroded. Each of these three prior violations was found to be a serious violation and each resulted in a fine, which Bethlehem paid. At the evidentiary hearing in the instant case, James C. Barry, who had been an Occupational Safety and Health Inspector for 17 years, testified. When asked if the three prior violations were substantially similar to the violation in the instant case, Mr. Barry answered in the affirmative and stated: Certainly dry rotted wiring and corroded wiring could produce pretty much the same situation which would be contact with energized electrical parts and in such produce a serious injury to an employee.