XV. Assignment of Proceeding
Susan P. Kennedy is the Assigned Commissioner in this investigation and Janet A. Econome is the assigned Administrative Law Judge.
1. The Commission does not expect utility systems to remain pristine and newly built 100% of the time; some deterioration is inevitable.
2. Although a utility may not be able to predict the precise manner and the exact time a particular piece of equipment or a facility will fail, deterioration is generally predictable, so a utility can determine when a particular class of equipment or facilities is likely to deteriorate to the point that safety or reliability is impaired.
3. Edison currently uses a five-tier maintenance priority system.
4. Some safety GO violations create more serious hazards than others.
5. Edison's maintenance priority system is flawed in that it creates a timetable for corrective action that may begin at the time a violation is noted.
6. The high voltage sign requirement is not only contained in GO 95 but also is a California statutory requirement in certain instances.
7. Although it may be dangerous for a worker to make a special trip to the primary power level solely to repair a high voltage sign, there may be less dangerous methods to achieve similar warnings.
8. The maximum interval between inspections pursuant to GO 165 is measured in calendar years .
9. Although there may be some subjectivity among CPSD inspectors, the record also demonstrated subjectivity among Edison employees as to what constitutes compliance with the GOs. The record demonstrates this is not a pervasive problem, and Edison did not specifically protest CPSD's audit findings at the time they were made.
10. It is impossible for a utility to keep its distribution system in full compliance with the safety GOs at all times, and, at any given time, there will be multiple violations on a utility's system.
11. The 37 accidents alleged by CPSD are described in detail in Appendix B. In seven of these accidents, we find no GO violation as alleged by CPSD.
12. Edison did not contest CPSD's findings of "nonconformances" with GOs 95 and 128 at the time CPSD made them; in fact, once notified, Edison remedied these problems as required by CPSD. Based on these CPSD inspection results, we find 4,044 violations of GO 95 and 677 violations of GO 128.
13. We find 56 violations of GO 165 for Edison's failure to identify unsafe conditions.
14. We fine Edison $656,000 based on a penalty of $20,000 for each of the 30 violations involving personal injury or property damage, and $1,000 for each of the 56 violations of GO 165 for failure to identify unsafe conditions.
15. Based on the record, we cannot determine whether the 4,808 GO violations we find somehow compromise the integrity or safety of Edison's system, or otherwise place these violations in any type of context.
1. CPSD has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Edison has violated the GOs and Rule 1.
2. GO 95 and 128 set both construction and maintenance standards.
3. Utilities are required to comply with relevant safety statutes, Commission GOs, and decisions, and the Commission has the statutory obligation to require utilities to do so.
4. If a utility fails to comply with a GO, it is violating that GO.
5. The Commission has discretion to provide utilities with notice and opportunity to cure violations in lieu of fines and to determine whether, and how much, to fine utilities for violations of GOs.
6. The fact that utilities have limited resources, and that a utility may not be able to correct every violation instantly, does not eliminate the existence of a violation, but may be a factor in assessing penalties. Penalties may also be imposed in order to encourage a utility to focus its system maintenance and repairs so as to prevent death, injury, and property damage.
7. Ideally, Edison should be inspecting for and repairing violations of GO 95 and 128, and also should be taking corrective action to the extent possible in order to forestall violations of the GOs.
8. Edison, in consultation with CPSD, should refine its maintenance priority system consistent with the discussion in Section VIII and IX of the Opinion.
9. If Edison believes the high voltage signs are no longer necessary, it should seek to change the applicable GOs and statutes to more meaningful criteria.
10. Edison and CPSD should meet and confer in a cooperative effort to determine whether adjustments to the high voltage sign requirement would achieve the same results as the sign. If useful alternatives emerge, the parties may raise them in R.01-10-001, or another appropriate forum, or in requesting legislative amendments. A similar exercise may be useful for other matters where Edison or CPSD believes that safety repairs pose a disproportionate risk to utility workers.
11. Edison is responsible for complying with the safety GOs at issue in this investigation and cannot escape this responsibility by delegating it to independent contractors. This responsibility is consistent with California law and Commission precedent.
12. As a general matter, to the extent that Edison is liable for the violation of the GOs by its own employees, it is also liable for violations by the employees of Edison's independent contractors.
13. For purposes of the "due care" obligations in GOs 95 and 128, if, despite Edison management's best efforts at achieving on-the-job safety as defined in the Cal/OSHA criteria set forth in Section X.B of the Opinion, an employee is spontaneously negligent, we would find no violation of the utility's "due care" obligations under these GOs.
14. Nothing in GO 165 relieves any utility from any requirements or obligations that it has under GOs 95 and 128.
15. Edison's violations of the GOs should not be excused because of the alleged subjectivity of CPSD inspectors.
16. While CPSD's past interpretation of GO compliance may be relevant in setting appropriate penalties, staff's interpretations of GOs are not binding on the Commission.
17. The conclusions regarding Edison's GO violations set forth in Appendix B are adopted.
18. Edison's conduct in supplying accident information to the Commission did not violate Rule 1.
19. Weighing the factors set forth in D.98-12-075, Appendix B (Penalty Guidelines), a fine of $656,000 is warranted.
20. This investigation should be closed.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Southern California Edison Company (Edison) shall be fined $656,000 for 30 violations of General Order (GO) 95 and GO 128 and 57 violations of GO 165.
2. No later than 30 days after the date this decision is mailed, Edison shall transmit the amount of the fine ($656,000) payable to the California Public Utilities Commission. The portion of the fine attributable to GO 95 and GO 128 violations ($600,000) shall then be deposited to the General Fund of the State of California. The portion of the fine attributable to GO 165 violations ($56,000) shall be used to offset funding for the California Alternative Rates for Energy Program pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 364(c). No later than 30 days after this decision is mailed, Edison shall submit an advice letter proposing an accounting method to accomplish this offset.
3. Edison, in consultation with the Commission's Consumer Protection and Safety Division (CPSD), shall refine its maintenance priority system consistent with the discussion in Sections VIII and IX of the Opinion.
4. Edison and CPSD shall meet and confer in a cooperative effort to determine whether adjustments to the high voltage sign requirement would achieve the same results as the sign. If useful alternatives emerge, the parties may raise them in Rulemaking 01-10-001, or another appropriate forum, or in requesting legislative amendments. A similar exercise may be useful for other items where Edison or CPSD believe that safety repairs pose a disproportionate risk to utility workers.
5. The motions to intervene of the California Cable and Telecommunications Association, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company are granted. CPSD's motion to accept its corrected appeal is granted.
6. This investigation is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated April 22, 2004 at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
CARL W. WOOD
GEOFFREY R. BROWN
SUSAN P. KENNEDY
Commissioners
I reserve the right to file a dissent.
/s/ LORETTA M. LYNCH
Commissioner
I reserve the right to file a concurrence.
/s/ CARL W. WOOD
Commissioner
APPENDIX A
APPEARANCES
Charles C. Read Celeste Easton
Attorney At Law 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 1400
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP Los Angeles, CA 90013-1011
400 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071 Michelle L. Wilson
Lise H. Jordan
Petrina Burnham Pacific Gas and Electric Company
San Diego Gas & Electric Company 77 Beale Street
8315 Centruy Park Court, CP22D San Francisco, CA 94105
San Diego, CA 92123-1550
Lesla Lehtonen
Marcel Hawiger California Cable &
Telecommunications Assoc.
Attorney At Law 4341 Piedmont Avenue
The Utility Reform Network Oakland, CA 94611
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 350
San Francisco, CA 94102
Gayatri Schilberg
JBS Energy
311 D Street, Suite A
West Sacramento, CA 95605
James M. Lehrer
Attorney At Law
Southern California Edison Company
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
Rosemead, CA 91770
Gregory Walters
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
8315 Century Park Court, CP 51D
San Diego, CA 92123-1582
Jason J. Zeller
California Public Utilities Commission
Legal Division
505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 5030
San Francisco, CA 94102-3214
(END OF APPENDIX A)
C. Accidents for Which Edison Alleges No Nonconformance
1. May 26, 1998 - Newbury Park
In early 1998, Tri-County Landscape (Tri-County) performed corrosion repairs on Edison's pad-mount transformers in the Santa Ana District of Orange County. In connection with this work an Edison supervisor gave Tri-County a key to access the transformer panels in Santa Ana. Edison states that these transformers were dead-front transformers, i.e., they had no exposed high voltage conductors in excess of 750-Volts. Tri-County performed its work unsatisfactorily and by March 1998 Edison no longer used them. However, Tri-County failed to return the key to Edison.
In May 1998, Edison retained Precision Electric (Precision) to do work in Newbury Park, which is about 100 miles from Santa Ana. The work included repairing the casing of a pad-mount transformer, which required affixing sheet metal with pop rivets over a rusted area on the casing. According to Edison, this work was cosmetic and did not require access to the inside of the transformer box.
Edison states that Precision subcontracted this work to Tri-County without Edison's knowledge. The Tri-County employee selected to do the work, Jasso, was in possession of the transformer key that Edison previously gave Tri-County. According to Edison, he did not have to open the transformer front to do the work. Nevertheless, Jasso decided to open the transformer, which was energized, to see what parts needed to be replaced and to paint the inside of the door. He tried to use the key, which did not work. He then ground off the lock and opened the front. Jasso came in contact with energized conductors inside the transformer and sustained burns to his arms and knees.
CPSD determined that Edison's work request to the contractor did not clearly state that the transformer structures were not to be opened, nor did it warn the contractor about the presence of the exposed live conductors inside the structure. CPSD also states that Edison supplied locks to the contractor's employees to be used for locking the transformer casing after accessing the structures, thus indicating that Edison knew that non-Edison employees would be exposed to high voltage facilities but failed to determine whether they were qualified to do so. CPSD found Edison in violation of GO 128, Rule 17.1 which requires that owners of electric systems and their employees exercise due care to reduce to a minimum the hazard of accidental injury to their own or fellow employees, the public and other utilities, due to the presence of such systems. By allowing an unqualified contractor to access energized equipment, CPSD believes that Edison violated Rule 17.1.
Edison believes there is no Rule 17.1 violation because it was unaware that Tri-County was doing the work and had no knowledge that whoever performed the work would open the transformer. According to Edison, failing to retrieve the key from the Tri-County employee is not the cause of the injuries, because Jasso did not use the key to gain access to the transformer. Edison claims if there is any negligence, it is on the part of Precision or Tri-County, for which Edison is not liable.
However, Edison has instituted several new policies as a result of this accident, including clarifying its restrictions on whether contractors may subcontract Edison work and which subcontractors they may use. Edison is also more detailed in describing the repair work and who may open transformers. Edison has also increased supervision of these contractors and has re-emphasized to its supervisors to be vigilant about giving and retrieving keys to Edison's facilities from contractors.
Conclusion: No violation of GO 128, Rule 17.1 because the contractor concealed the sub-contract from Edison.
1. June 21, 1998 - Lancaster
A person was fatally injured when he climbed an Edison pole in Lancaster, coming in contact with an energized transformer fuse holder. This individual was alleged to be stealing Edison's property for salvage.
CPSD believes that Edison violated GO 95, Rule 31.6 which states that "lines or portions of lines permanently abandoned shall be removed by their owners so that such lines shall not become a public nuisance or a hazard to life or property." CPSD believes Edison violated Rule 31.6 when it failed to remove the equipment after service was disconnected, even though there were no pending new business meter orders for this location.
In investigating the accident, CPSD requested from Edison an explanation as to why the idle transformer had not been removed. Edison responded that there was an outstanding new business meter order for service. However, Edison could not provide a copy of this business order, and after months of follow-up, told CPSD that the facilities were idle with no pending work order for service. CPSD also alleges a Rule 1 violation for Edison's conduct during CPSD's investigation of this incident.
Edison disagrees and believes that the line involved in the accident was not permanently abandoned. Pursuant to requests from a county inspector because a house was being demolished, Edison removed the meters and lines actually serving the house and pump. However, Edison did not receive any requests to remove the pole or distribution lines supported by the pole and did not do so. Edison reasoned that a customer might rebuild and it would, therefore, be uneconomic to remove this equipment.
Seven months passed between Edison's first receipt of the request to disconnect service and the accident. Edison argues that even if the property were permanently abandoned pursuant to Rule 31.6, that CPSD has not shown Edison's failure to remove the facilities within seven months is unreasonable. Edison also disputes CPSD's Rule 1 allegations.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 95, Rule 31.6 because in the absence of evidence to the contrary, such as might have been uncovered had Edison made inquiries, the facilities had been permanently abandoned and Edison was obliged to remove them. The Rule 1 allegations are discussed in the text of the decision.
2. August 29, 1998 - Hacienda Heights
During an inspection on August 18, 1998, Edison's tree-trimming contractor Asplundh Tree Expert Company (Asplundh) observed the clearance between Edison's 12,000 volt conductor and Cypress tree branches at a house in Hacienda Heights was only six inches. Asplundh attempted to trim the trees at that location but was refused access to the property. Asplundh reported this denial of access to Edison, which planned to follow up with this property owner after Asplundh finished trimming the grid.
Eleven days after Asplundh attempted to trim the trees a fire occurred, apparently as a result of the cypress trees contacting Edison's conductors. The fire caused an outage that lasted about two days for about 10 customers. The only property damage caused by the fire was to Edison's facilities, and Edison repaired this damage. Shortly thereafter, the owner of the trees removed them before Edison's tree trimming personnel returned to the location.
CPSD believes that Edison violated GO 95, Rule 35 which requires a minimum clearance of 18 inches between conductors of 750 to 22,500 volts and vegetation. Edison believes it is excused by the customer's denial of access.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 95, Rule 35 because the trees only had 6 inches of clearance at the time of Asplundh's inspection.
3. September 16, 1998 - Santa Ana
An employee of a demolition contractor received flash burns when an underground switch exploded. According to Edison, the contractor's employees working on the demolition removed the cover of the underground structure and then tried to remove the energized cables from inside the structure, causing the explosion.
The switch enclosure cover had recently broken due to trucks driving over it, but Edison received no notification of this. The evidence is conflicting as to whether Edison's name appeared on the switch enclosure cover. CPSD alleges Edison violated GO 128 which requires manholes, handholds, and subsurface equipment enclosures to be marked as to ownership to facilitate identification by persons authorized to work in the area.
Edison claims that the broken cover had an Edison marking, but even if it did not, the marking would not have made a difference because Edison's name was on the grade ring surrounding the cover and there were electrical diagrams on the switch.
Conclusion: No violation of GO 128 because (i) no clear evidence that Edison's name was not on the switch cover (ii) undisputed evidence that Edison's name appeared on the grade ring surrounding the cover.
5. December 10, 1998 - Corona
An employee of an Edison contractor was replacing downed Edison 12,000-volt energized conductors when he came in contact with one of the conductors and suffered first degree burns to his hand and foot. CPSD found that Edison's Damage Assessment Team (DAT) had patrolled the same circuit and observed an unsafe condition (primary conductor attached to a steel bar using an insulated wire) but had failed to communicate this information to the contractor. CPSD found Edison in violation of GO 95, Rule 31.1 requiring owners and employees of electrical systems to exercise due care to minimize the hazard of accidental injury to their own or follow employees.
Edison explains that the accident occurred after a severe windstorm. DAT identified the downed conductors but the troubleman went to the area in the dark and was unable to observe the downed power lines, and did not receive the DAT report. Edison also explains that the injured worker directly caused the injury because he may have been backhanding it to see if it was energized. This practice is against industry rules.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 95, Rule 31.1. Edison violated Rule 31.1 by failing to advise the contractor that the downed lines were energized.
6. August 27, 1999 - Hesperia
In August 1999, an eight-acre brush fire ignited in Hesperia, originating from an Edison triplex (a three-wire insulated service drop) cable with insulation that deteriorated from contact with an elm tree. CPSD found Edison in violation of GO 95, Rule 35, which requires a utility that has actual knowledge of evidence of tree abrasion on circuits of 0-750 volts to correct this problem by certain designated actions.
Edison argues that it did not violate Rule 35 because it had not found any evidence of tree abrasion either when it trimmed the tree less than a year before the fire or two months before the incident on a circuit patrol, and thus did not have actual knowledge of the abrasion as required by Rule 35. Edison explains that it has emphasized the importance of detailed inspection for abrasions to all patrol personnel to help prevent possible future occurrences.
Conclusion: No violation of GO 95, Rule 35 because CPSD did not demonstrate that Edison had actual knowledge of the condition as defined by the Rule.
7. November 5, 1999 - Palm Springs
On November 5, 1999, a palm tree burned, causing a fire, which damaged two sheds, landscaping, and the roof of a motel. Edison reported the accident to CPSD on March 14, 2000. CPSD found that the palm tree came in contact with Edison's 4000-volt conductor, thus causing the fire and alleges a violation of GO 95, Rule 35, which requires an 18-inch clearance between conductors of 750-22,500 volts and vegetation to be maintained at all times. CPSD also found Edison out of compliance with Decision (D.) 96-11-004, Appendix B, which requires Edison to report such accidents to the Commission within two hours of the utility's becoming aware of the accident.
Edison states that it trimmed a palm at the same address about two months before the accident. There were four palms in the area and it is unknown whether the previously trimmed tree, or another of the palms, caught fire. The fire department found that during breezy conditions, one of the trees blew into the primary facilities causing an arc and subsequent fire. Edison seemingly disputes the fire department's report, claiming the cause of the fire is of unknown origin, and one witness describes the fire as burning up the tree.
Edison first learned of the incident in February 2000, and subsequently attempted to obtain more information from the insurance company. Edison confirmed the incident with the fire department on March 14, 2000 and reported the incident to the Commission on the same day.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 95, Rule 35, based on the fire department's finding of the cause of the fire. Also a violation of D.96-11-004 because Edison failed to inform the Commission of the accident until about a month after it learned of it.
8. November 19, 1999 - Valencia
A three-member Edison crew was injured from a flash, which occurred when they cut into an energized 16,000-volt underground cable.
The crew members suffered second- and third-degree burns to their arms and faces.
CPSD found that the Edison crew identified, de-energized, and tagged a cable, which they believed was the cable they needed to isolate. The crew then began to cut into another cable, assuming it was the cable they had de-energized. According to CPSD, this incorrect assumption was due to the fact that Edison records did not reflect the existence of two cables at the incident location.
CPSD alleges that Edison violated GO 128, Rule 17.1, which requires owners of underground electric supply systems and their employees at all times to exercise due care to reduce to a minimum the hazard of accidental injury to their own or fellow employees.
Edison states that the map reflected both cables, but admits that the map was geographically inaccurate. Nonetheless, Edison believes it did not violate the due care provisions of GO 128 because the crews know the maps to be geographically inaccurate and the crew followed all safety rules and industry practices.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 128, Rule 17.1 because the map, which was provided to the crew shortly before the accident, did not reflect the correct geographic location of both cables. Edison is presumed to know where its cables are. We note that after the accident, Edison has implemented further safety procedures to prevent this type of accident from reoccurring, such as distributing a bulletin to the workers emphasizing: (a) the safety precautions to be followed in troubleshooting and testing underground cables; (b) wearing protective gear and staying out of the dig hole and as far away as possible from the opening during spiking; and (3) advising review of inventory maps as a supplement to circuit maps because the later are electrically correct but not necessarily geographically accurate.
9. December 20, 1999 - Baldwin Park
Two Edison employees were working on the top of a pole located near the Central Elementary School when the pole collapsed causing them both to fall and lose consciousness. The two employees suffered head and back injuries.
CPSD found that a four-foot deep trench was dug down to the base of the pole in preparation for the installation of conduit for Edison-owned cable, which trench affected the pole's integrity and stability. CPSD also found that the depth of the pole did not meet the pole depth requirements in GO 95, Table 6. CPSD therefore found that Edison violated GO 95, Table 6 as well as GO 95, Rule 31.1, which requires owners and employees of electric systems to exercise due care to minimize the hazard of accidental injury.
Edison disputes CPSD's conclusion, arguing that what caused the accident was the workers failing to inspect the pole before climbing it, as required by Edison's safety practices. Edison argues that even if Rule 31.1 were relevant, Edison complied with it through its commitment to employee safety training and compliance.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 95, Rule 31.1. Edison knew or ought to have known that trenching around the base of the pole would eliminate lateral subjacent support and create a risk of injury.
10. January 28, 2000 - Agoura
An employee of an Edison contractor, Sturgeon Electric (Sturgeon) was installing a crossarm on a new Edison pole in Agoura. As the Sturgeon employee tried to place the crossarm in position, a bonded insulator pin on the crossarm contacted a 16,000-volt conductor. The contact created a flash, causing first- and second-degree burns to the employee. Sturgeon later fired the employee for failing to adhere to safety rules.
CPSD found that the employee violated several safety rules and the employee's supervisor who was at the scene did not correct his conduct. CPSD alleges that Edison therefore violated GO 95, Rule 31.1, which requires owners and employees of electrical systems to exercise due care to reduce to a minimum the hazard of accidental injury to their own or fellow employees, to the public and other utilities. Edison does not dispute that the conduct of the contractor's employee caused the accident but states that it does not owe a duty of care or liability for injury to an independent contractor's employee.
Conclusion: No violation of GO 95. Rule 31.1 by its terms obligates Edison to use due care to protect its employees and the public. Even if the contractor's employee may be considered a member of the general public for purposes of applying Rule 31.1 to this situation, nothing in the record suggests that Edison either knew or should have known that Sturgeon would assign a careless employee to this job. In the absence of evidence establishing that there was a lack of due care on Edison's part in hiring Sturgeon, the carelessness of Sturgeon's employee cannot be imputed to Edison.
11 March 1, 2000 - Emerald Bay
An employee of a contractor installing water drainage basins was injured when he cut into an Edison underground PVC conduit containing 12,000-volt cables. The employee had assumed the conduit was an abandoned water line. He sustained second-degree burns to his right arm.
CPSD found that the contractor had requested a facility mark-out for the excavation through Underground Service Area (USA), a one-call system. USA notifies utilities in the area of the pending permit to dig, and the utilities are required to go to the site and mark the location of their facilities. Edison contracted with Underground Technology Incorporated (UTI) to mark the facilities on its behalf. UTI's technician was unable to find Edison's aperture card for this location and used only visible structures in the area to locate the underground conductors. As a result, he located and marked only the conductors running in an east-west direction but failed to locate and mark the north-south conductors.
CPSD states that Edison failed to mark its underground cable correctly, and is therefore in violation of GO 128, Rule 17.7.
Rule 17.7 provides in pertinent part as follows:
"Each party operating or owning facilities shall, upon request, provide information as to location of its underground facilities to any other party contemplating underground construction or work, in the vicinity thereof. Provision of such information by a party will not relieve such other party of his responsibility to locate accurately such underground facilities and to exercise reasonable care during construction or work."
Edison believes it did not violate GO 128 because it is not responsible for the independent failure of its contractor to properly perform contracted work. Edison also argues that the party doing the excavation work, and not Edison, has ultimate responsibility for verifying the actual location of the cable.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 128. Edison is responsible for complying with the GOs. UTI was Edison's agent for purposes of marking the location of the underground utilities and was acting within the scope of its agency when it failed to locate and mark the underground conductors. UTI's failure flows through to Edison.
12. April 7, 2000 - Rancho Palos Verdes
Two Edison employees were burned when they started working on an energized pad-mounted transformer in Rancho Palos Verdes. One employee, Hulstein, suffered fatal injuries, and the second employee, Romano, suffered second- and third-degree burns. Another Edison employee sustained minor burns when he came to the aid of the two employees.
CPSD found that the Hulstein and Romano did not receive clear instructions from their supervisor, who was on the site, regarding the equipment on which the work was performed. CPSD also found that both employees were not using personal protective equipment or tools to perform the work.
CPSD alleges that Edison violated GO 128, Rule 17.1, which requires owners of electric supply systems and their employees at all times to exercise due care to reduce to a minimum the hazard of accidental injury to their own or fellow employees.
Edison explains that due to the emergency nature of the repairs, they were being conducted around midnight. Edison states that the supervisor held several instructional briefings (tailboards) with the crew before it commenced work, going to each of the three transformers and instructing the crew which were energized and which were not. According to Edison, the employees were injured when they inexplicably went to transformer 1 instead of the transformer they had been working on (number 3) to install the elbow. Edison states it is unknown why they went to transformer 1 since the tailboards indicated that everything on it was energized, they were never instructed to do work on it, and they were instructed to place the elbows on transformer 3. Edison states that after the explosion, the supervisor heard Hulstein say, "I f-----d up, Mark. I hurt that kid. Save Juan and let me die."
Edison also states that Cal/OSHA determined that Edison did not contribute to this incident and declined to impose penalties on Edison. According to Edison, Cal/OSHA concluded that Hulstein knew the requirements of Edison's safety program but failed to follow those rules.
Conclusion: No violation of GO 128. Consistent with Rule 17.1 Edison had done everything in its power to minimize the risk of injury; in spite of these actions, someone was injured. The Rule does not require Edison to guarantee the safety of its employees, only to minimize their risks.
II. Accidents for Which Edison Alleges Nonconformance But No Causation
1. November 14, 1998-Altadena
Professional tree trimmer for a landscaping company, Cortez, contacted the 16,000-volt conductors while using a saw attached to a 7-foot 3 ½-inch conductive aluminum swimming pool pole. He was burned and fatally injured. CPSD found that the crossarm on the Edison pole supporting the conductors did not have a high voltage sign as required by GO 95, and alleges that Edison violated GO 95, Rule 51.6A which requires poles that support line conductors of more than 750 volts to be marked with high voltage signs.
Cortez was a professional tree trimmer and foreman for his employer. He previously told his co-worker to be careful around power lines and was wearing safety gear at the time of the accident. Also, an undamaged high voltage sign was on the other cross arm of the same pole, less than 50 feet from the tree Cortez was trimming.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 95, Rule 51.6A
2. November 17, 1998- Camarillo
Edison lineman Stubbs was working on a pad-mounted transformer in Camarillo when he contacted an energized 16,000-volt conductor. Stubbs received third-degree burns to his right hand and left finger. CPSD alleges that the pad-mounted structure, which contained exposed 16,000-volt conductors, did not have warning signs posted inside the structure, and that Edison was therefore in violation of GO 128, Rule 35.3 which requires warning signs indicating high voltage to be installed inside pad-mounted transformer compartments containing exposed live parts above 750 volts.
Stubbs was an experienced lineman and prior electrical crew foreman who had worked for Edison for 21 years and was aware that the transformer contained exposed energized components. Moreover, although the transformer did not have high voltage warning signs installed inside its box, high voltage warning signs were installed on the exterior.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 128, Rule 35.3
3. November 23, 1998 - Rancho Palos Verdes
An employee of California Communications Company (CCC), a contractor for a cable television company, was installing a copper ground rod and came in contact with Edison's underground 12,000-volt cable. The employee sustained second- and third-degree burns to his back, wrist, and lower leg.
CPSD found that the contractor had requested a facility mark-out of the work area through USA. USA notifies all utilities in the area of the pending permit to dig, and the utilities are required to go to the site and mark the location of their facilities. Edison has contracted with the UTI to locate the underground facilities in its service area, providing UTI with copies of its underground maps, aperture cards, and cable locating equipment. UTI marked the approximate location of the cable.
CPSD states that Edison failed to mark its underground cable correctly, and is therefore in violation of GO 128, Rule 17.7, which is quoted in the Emerald Bay accident discussion above.
Edison states it satisfied its GO 128 obligation to locate this underground facility by providing UTI with the information necessary to determine the facility's approximate location as defined by Government Code § 4216 (i.e., within designated dimensions which does not include depth). Edison also explains that it is not responsible for UTI's errors of failing to accurately locate the facilities. According to Edison, it is also not responsible for CCC's failures to properly locate the facilities under Rule 17.7, nor to provide the employee with the proper training. Edison cites to a Cal/OSHA report finding that CCC failed to provide the employee with any training, and argues that the employee arbitrarily placed the rod in a spot located in the middle of the wires without checking for any Edison markings or trying to ascertain the location of the Edison cable.
Conclusion: No violation. The record did not establish that Edison or its independent contractor inaccurately located the facilities (as opposed to the CCC employee's error occurring through lack of proper training.)
4. December 18, 1998- Inglewood
Tree trimmer Morales was trimming and removing a rubber tree with an 18-foot 3-inch long aluminum pruning pole near Edison's 16,000-volt conductors when he was fatally injured by coming in contact with the conductors. Morales was an experienced tree trimmer who had previously trimmed this tree and knew to be careful near high voltage wires. The CPSD inspector found that at the time of the accident, Edison's 16,000-volt conductors were in contact with the rubber tree.
CPSD alleges that Edison violated GO 95, Rules 35, which requires a minimum of 18 inches to be maintained between conductors of 750 to 22,500 volts and vegetation at all times, and Rule 51.6 A, which requires poles that support line conductors of more than 750 volts to be marked with high voltage signs.
The evidence is conflicting on the alleged violation of Rule 35 requiring Edison to keep a minimum of an 18-inch clearance between the high voltage wire and the tree. CPSD asserts that at the time of the accident, Edison's 16,000-volt conductors were in contact with the rubber tree. Relying on information presented in the wrongful death case, Edison claims the alleged noncompliance with the 18-inch clearance rule is based on a letter from the apartment owner to CPSD, which letter in turn is based on information Morales told the apartment owner when he solicited work from them. Edison states that its contractor had trimmed the tree six months before the accident about five to six feet back from the conductors. Edison's tree expert determined the tree had grown only two to four feet since the trim six months before the accident, and thus, no branches of the tree were within 18 inches of the conductor. Edison was not found to be liable in a subsequent wrongful death case.
Conclusion: One violations of GO 95 for a missing high voltage sign.
5. February 5, 1999 - Corona
A worker installing a concrete streetlight pole was injured while in the process of installing a marbelite streetlight pole. A crane was lifting a pole and while the worker was positioning it, the pole came in contact with Edison's 12,000-volt overheard conductors. Visibility was poor but the workers were all aware of the proximity of high voltage lines to the work.
CPSD found that the south face crossarm of the pole north of the point of contact did not have a high voltage sign and therefore Edison violated GO 95, Rule 51.6 which requires marking of poles supporting conductors of more than 750-Volts.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 95.
6. July 20, 1999 - Long Beach
A contractor working for Los Angeles County was installing a sewer main in Long Beach. While boring holes in the asphalt roadway, the auger equipment that was being used came in contact with Edison's underground 12,000-volt cable. One of the contractor's employees was injured in the resulting explosion, receiving second-degree burns to his face, upper chest, and right arm.
CPSD found that the contractor had requested facility mark-out of the work area, but Edison's marking and locating contractor, UTI, failed to mark the 12,000-volt cable. CPSD also found the aperture cards that Edison provided to UTI to be used for locating and marking Edison's facilities were inaccurate.
CPSD found Edison in violation of GO 128, Rule 17.7 which requires each party operating or owning underground electric facilities to provide, upon request, facility location information to any party contemplating underground work in the vicinity of its underground facilities. (The relevant portion of Rule 17.7 is quoted in the Emerald Bay discussion in Section A.11 above.) CPSD also found Edison in violation of GO 128, Rule 17.7A, which requires each party operating or owning facilities to maintain necessary records to comply with Rule 17.7.
Rule 17.7 A provides:
"The responsibility for the maintenance of necessary records to comply with this rule rests with the party owning or operating the facilities. Such records shall be available for inspection at all times by the Commission or the Commission staff."
Edison states that these "technical infractions" may have occurred, but the responsibility for the accident ultimately lies with Edison's contractor and with the contractor whose employees were injured. Because Rule 17.7 states that provision of information regarding the location of an underground facility by a party does not relieve the requesting party of the responsibility to locate accurately such underground facilities, Edison argues that the failure independently to verify the location of the subject facilities was an independent intervening cause of the accident that cut off any causal link with Edison.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 128, Rules 17.7 and 17.1. Edison is responsible for complying with the GOs. Although Edison may contract with independent contractors to do its work, it cannot delegate its GO responsibility to an independent contractor so as to insulate itself from liability for failure to comply with the GOs. Edison's compliance should include providing accurate information as to the location of its underground facilities to any other party contemplating underground construction or work in the vicinity thereof, and maintaining the accurate records to comply with such requests.
7. July 23, 1999 - Sun City
Two young men aged 15 and 18 broke into an Edison pad-mounted structure. The young men pried off the security lock, removed a clear Plexiglas safety panel that had three high voltage signs installed on its surface, and used a wooden stick to dislodge the internal fuse. As a result, one of the youths received flash burns.
CPSD states that Edison violated GO 128, Rules 35.3 which requires warning signs on the exterior surface of pad-mounted structures containing exposed live parts above 750 volts.
Conclusion: No violation of GO 128, Rule 35.3. The record is silent as to whether there were high voltage signs on the exterior surface.
8. September 19, 1999-Monrovia
Wallick used an aluminum pole to try to retrieve his son's toy, a water pressure rocket, that was caught and hung on a 16,000 volt line attached to an Edison pole. In order to access the pole, Wallick first scaled a block wall and climbed a chain link fence. Then he climbed up the pole, straddling a telephone guard arm. Using the aluminum pole, he contacted the rocket several times and at some point contacted the conductor with his aluminum pole, and sustained third-degree burns to about 60% of his body.
CPSD states Edison violated GO 95, rule 51.6A because the crossarm on the pole supporting the 16,000-Volt conductors did not have a high voltage marking. Edison admits that the sign was missing, but states the pole had five other sets of high voltage signs that Wallick should have seen climbing the pole.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 95 Rule 51.6A
9. November 20, 1999 - Pomona
An Edison lineman was climbing a pole in order to transfer existing overhead facilities to a new pole. The lineman lost his footing and fell 20 feet to the ground, injuring his legs. CPSD found the pole was not stepped, and found Edison in violation of GO 95, Rule 91.3 which requires joint poles with vertical risers or runs to be stepped.
Edison states that when it first installed the pole in the early 1990s, it was not a joint pole and thus did not have to be stepped. Edison explains that it is industry custom and practice in California for the cable and telephone companies that subsequently installed their risers and thus, turned it into a jointly used pole, to step the risers. Edison claimed that it did not know, nor should it have known, that the other entities had added risers to the pole without stepping it. Edison also states that there is no evidence that the lack of steps caused the lineman to fall, but offers no competing theory of injury.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 95. Edison cannot shield itself from liability by relying on other entities to fulfill its obligations. When Edison permits another utility to share its pole, Edison retains the obligation to comply with our GOs. At a minimum Edison should seek and receive assurances from such other entities that the pole-stepping requirements have been complied with.
10. August 11, 2000 - Cypress
A roof framer working on the roof of a newly constructed house came in contact with an Edison 12,000-volt conductor and fell from the roof striking a block wall below. He suffered second- and third-degree burns.
CPSD found the vertical clearance of the 12,000-volt conductor over the roof was less than 10 feet and did not meet the minimum clearance requirement of 12 feet specified by GO 95. CPSD also found that Edison was aware that the house was being constructed at the location under its power lines.
Edison explains that it notified the contractor of the dangers of building near power lines and that it should contact Edison to relocate the lines before starting any framing. The contractor contacted Edison in early July. Edison inspected the site at that time and observed no evidence of framing but knew, or should have known, that roof framing would begin with a few weeks at the most. The contractor did not call Edison when it began framing the roof later in July and Edison did not return to inspect the work again before the accident occurred.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 95. Edison had actual knowledge that a house was being constructed under low-hanging power lines and should have known that roof framing was immanent.
11. September 18, 2000 - Monterey Park
A painter, Daniel Yeager, standing in a metal painter's swing attached to the wall, contacted Edison's 16,000-volt conductor with a metal painting pole. The painter received flash burns on his chest and arms.
The painter's employer had warned Yeager to be careful when working around the power lines, and Yeager had worked in construction nearly his entire working life. Coworkers also knew the wires were dangerous.
CPSD alleges Edison violated GO 95, Rule 51.6 because the crossarm supporting the 16,000-Volt conductor did not have high voltage markings.
Conclusion: Violation of GO 95.
Accidents for Which Edison Admits that it Failed to Comply with a General Order and its Failure Led to an Injury.
Summary
This section briefly summarizes the accidents in which Edison admits if failed to comply with a GO and that failure led to an injury. As discussed in the text of this decision, failure to comply with a GO is a violation of the GO. We therefore find violations of the GO for the following accidents based on Edison's own admission. However, we briefly summarize the accidents because some of the facts are relevant for our overall penalty discussion.
1. October 15, 1998 - Alhambra
A lineman working for a cable television company's contractor contacted an energized Edison ground wire and a grounded guy wire while working on a pole. He received an electric shock and fell 15 feet to the ground, suffering fractures to his left arm and rib.
CPSD found that the portion of Edison's ground wire that the lineman contacted had damaged covering and was exposed. CPSD therefore found Edison in violation of GO 95, Rule 54.6, which requires ground wires attached to poles to be covered through their length by a suitable protective covering.
Edison claimed that it could not have discovered the problem in circuit patrols, and this area was not subject to detail inspections at the time of the accident. Edison further explains that other actions (a defective wiring of the nearby air conditioner, Pacific Bell's tapping into Edison's ground wire, and the lineman's failure to wear protective clothing) led to the accident.
2. September 19, 1999 - Simi Valley
A palm tree caught fire in Simi Valley. CPSD found that the fire was caused by the tree's contact with Edison's 16,000-volt conductor, and that Edison violated GO 95, Rule 35, which requires an 18-inch clearance between conductors of 750-22,000 volts and vegetation to be maintained at all times.
Edison states that it trimmed the tree on December 17, 1998 in accordance with established tree-trimming procedures, and on August 19, 1999, patrolled the circuit that included this area and noted no problems with the palm tree's clearance with the conductors. No structures or other property burned in this accident and Edison trimmed the tree after the fire was extinguished and removed it about two weeks later.
3. November 15, 1999 - Pomona
A fire damaged an apartment complex in Pomona. CPSD states the fire started when a portion of Edison's 12,000-volt conductor fell across the garages located in the alley at the rear of the complexes. CPSD found that the conductor failed at the splice from material fatigue and that Edison violated GO 95, Rules 44.1 and 44.2, which require safety factors to be maintained for conductors and equipment.
Edison states that the conductor was installed in 1960 and inspected as part of a circuit patrol on April 28, 1999. Edison further believes that CPSD speculates that metal fatigue of the conductor caused it to fail, but it is unknown what caused the failure. Because Edison conducted a circuit patrol of the area a few months before the accident, and because Edison had no actual knowledge that the safety factor had been reduced below the minimum requirement, Edison does not believe it violated the GO.
4. May 1, 2000 - Orange
A telephone company technician was working from a ladder on a pole when she came in contact with an exposed Edison ground wire. She received a shock and fell 12 feet to the ground, sustaining a cracked pelvic bone and sacrum and hand injuries. CPSD found that the ground molding covering the Edison ground wire was broken, causing the ground wire to be exposed. Therefore, CPSD alleges Edison violated GO 95, Rule 54.4 B which requires electric supply system ground wires attached to the surface of poles to be covered throughout their length.
Edison states that it conducted a circuit patrol of the area on May 29, 1999, but circuit patrols typically do not detect this type of problem. Edison had not yet conducted a detailed inspection of the area. Thus, Edison states that it was unaware that the condition existed. Although Edison concedes that the broken ground molding may have contributed to the accident, Edison argues that the telephone company technician's action was the primary contributing cause of the accident, because she was aware of the broken ground wire molding before the accident. Additionally, according to Edison, she did not test the pole for voltage, nor was she using proper safety equipment.
5. May 29, 2000 - Santa Fe Springs
A fire ignited in Santa Fe Springs when tree fronds from a palm tree came in contact with Edison's 12,000-volt conductor. This resulted in fault current traveling down the line, causing the conductor to fall onto a garage. Fault current then went through the metal flashing on the roof, causing fire damage to the eaves and damaging appliances inside.
CPSD found Edison violated GO 95, Rule 35, which requires that an 18-inch clearance be maintained at all times between conductors of 750-22,500 volts and vegetation.
Edison states it trimmed the tree on May 29, 1998, and inspected it on a circuit patrol again on April 16, 1999. Edison states it did not note a clearance problem in its circuit patrol. Edison disagrees with CPSD's conclusion that Edison did not adequately trim the tree, but instead believes that the tree may have simply grown more than expected after its last trim.
6. July 3, 2000 - Inglewood
An 11-year-old girl attending a swimming pool party came in contact with an Edison service drop wire while climbing a swimming pool slide ladder and was fatally injured. CPSD found that the service drop had only three feet of vertical clearance above the pool slide ladder, the covering on the service drop conductors had deteriorated, and the conductors were bare. CPSD stated that the last circuit patrol of the area was April 29, 1999.
CPSD alleges Edison violated GO 95, Rule 37 which requires an eight-foot vertical service drop clearance over walkable surfaces and Rule 49.4 which requires service drop conductors to be covered. CPSD also found Edison in violation of GO 165 for exceeding the one-year maximum period between circuit patrols.
Edison states that although the homeowner noticed a drooping wire, she did not call Edison to report a problem. However, two days prior to the accident, the homeowner called Edison to report a partial lights problem and then called again to say that the power had been restored.
Edison states that what caused the wire to droop above the pool slide ladder was the mechanical failure of parts supporting the wire. In addition, the weather-resistant covering had worn away in the area where the child contacted the wires. Edison states the area had not yet had a detailed inspection, and states it had no notice of the condition because it had occurred just days earlier and the homeowner did not report it.
Edison believes it complied with GO 165's inspection requirements because it followed an annual inspection cycle (i.e., it conducted a circuit patrol in 1999 and 2000.) Moreover, according to Edison, an early circuit patrol would not have prevented the accident because circuit patrols are not designed to discover deteriorated coverings.
7. July 31, 2000 - Montclair
An employee of a wireless communication company was installing a wireless FM receiver on a street light pole when he made contact with an Edison 12,000-volt conductor with a metal strap. The employee suffered second- and third-degree burns to his forearm and left hand.
CPSD found that the Edison 12,000-volt conductors were passing directly above the street light pole with a vertical clearance of 4 feet and 5 inches. CPSD therefore alleges that Edison violated GO 95, Rule 37, which requires a minimum six-foot radial clearance between supply conductors of 750-22,500 volts and street light poles.
Edison states that at the time of the accident, the pole supporting the conductors was leaning about five degrees to the south, creating slack in the affected span. Edison states that Comcast Cable Company, which rented space on the pole, had caused the condition earlier in the year when it installed a new communication cable in this span, but had not informed Edison of the problem. Edison states it was therefore unaware of the problem and had not had the opportunity to discover it through its annual GO 165 inspection cycle. Edison also believes the injured employee's employer contributed to the accident by incorrectly representing to the employee that any electrical exposure he might receive in installing devices would be of a low voltage. In fact, CalOSHA cited the employer for safety violations.
8. August 8, 2000 - Apple Valley
A fire ignited in Apple Valley causing damage to about 90 feet of the property's wooden fence. CPSD found the fire was caused by a "triplex" service drop cable with insulation that was deteriorated from contact with a tree. CPSD also found that on August 6, 2000, an Edison troubleman had discovered that the insulation on the service drop had deteriorated and had made a temporary repair with the intent of replacing the triplex on August 10. CPSD alleges Edison violated GO 95, Rule 35, which requires tree abrasion conditions on circuits of
0-750 volts to be corrected by slacking or rearranging the line, trimming the tree, or placing mechanical protection on the conductor.
Edison states that the reason that the permanent repairs were scheduled for August 10 was that was the first day a four-wheel drive vehicle, which was necessary to make the repairs, was available. Edison further states that the accident was not caused by Edison's temporary repairs, but rather by the tree coming in contact with the triplex service conductor.
9. October 12, 2000 - Valencia
An Edison lineman installing new conductors on an Edison pole was injured when the new, de-energized 66,000-volt conductor he was installing came in contact with energized 16,000-volt conductors installed on the same pole one level below. The lineman suffered second- and third-degree burns to his face, hands, neck and upper torso.
CPSD found that the Edison crew working on the installation did not de-energize the 16,000-volt conductors and only covered one of its phases with an insulated covering, even though all three phases were in the vicinity of the work area. CPSD alleges Edison violated GO 95, Rule 31.1, which requires owners and employees of electrical systems at all times to exercise due care to reduce to a minimum the hazard of accidental injury to their own or fellow employees.
Edison admits that its foreman failed to follow Edison's work rules and to exercise due care, although Edison states the foreman was properly instructed by Edison. Edison disciplined the foreman and took steps to ensure that type of accident would not happen again. Edison claimed that nothing it could have reasonably done prior to the accident would have prevented it.
10. December 14, 2000 - Palm Springs
Two Edison employees were slightly injured when the pole they were climbing broke at ground level and fell over. Investigation revealed the cause of the accident to be the failure of a corroded anchor rod located approximately 8 feet below ground.
Edison believes that there was nothing it was required to do under its inspection program to discover that the anchor rod was corroded and would fail, and that CPSD did not prove any negligent act or omission of Edison caused the accident. Edison argues that although the guy wire supporting the pole detached from its anchor and the underground portion of the pole was rotten, neither of these conditions caused the pole to break. According to Edison, what caused the pole to fall over was the unpredictable breaking of the anchor rod 8 feet below the surface, and that because of the broken anchor rod, the pole would have broken even if it were new. Edison states that it has investigated ways to examine underground anchor rods for corrosion, but has found no method to ascertain their condition. Edison is monitoring future incidents involving anchor rods but to date has not noted an increased rate of failure for these rods.
11. December 19, 2000 - Ventura
A fire burned 40 acres of grass and vegetation in Ventura. CPSD's investigation found that the through bolt supporting a crossarm with 16,000-volt conductors broke, causing the crossarm to be supported by only two metal flat bars. This resulted in a shock loading effect, causing the conductors to oscillate and one conductor to break from the insulators and fall to the ground. CPSD alleges Edison violated GO 95, Rules 44.1 and 44.2, which specify the minimum safety factors to be established and maintained for crossarms and pole line hardware.
Edison believes the failure of the bolt was spontaneous and unpredictable, and that it did not have the opportunity to discover or remedy the condition under its established inspection program. Edison states the last circuit patrol occurred on September 8, 2000, within the required timeframe for circuit patrols. Edison is monitoring its incident reports to determine if a pattern or increased failure of this type of bolt occurs. So far, none has been reported.
E. Admits a Violation, Causation, and a Failure to Detect/Remedy the Violation Accidents for Which Edison
Summary
This section briefly summarizes the accidents in which Edison admits it violated a GO, failed to detect or remedy the violation, and the violation led to an injury. As discussed in the text of this decision, failure to comply with a GO is a violation thereof. Therefore, we find violations of the GO for the following accidents based on Edison's own admission. However, we briefly summarize the accidents because some of the facts are relevant for our overall penalty discussion.
1. April 16, 1998 - Marina Del Rey
An aboveground pad-mounted transformer failed, resulting in an explosion and fire that caused minor property damage but no personal injuries.
CPSD found the transformer failed due to low oil level caused by a corrosion leak. CPSD found the transformer was last inspected on February 26, 1998, that the inspection crew noted at that time that the transformer was leaking badly, and that actions had to be taken as soon as possible. CPSD states that Edison failed to take appropriate action. CPSD alleges that Edison violated GO 128, Rule 12.2 which requires Edison to maintain systems in a condition which will secure safety to the public and property.
Edison states that due to human error, the information stating that it was necessary to take action on this transformer as soon as possible was not recorded into Edison's on-line Automated Grid Maintenance System (AGMS), nor was an Additional Repair Request generated concerning the transformer, as required by Edison's Operation and Maintenance Manual. Edison states that even though it endeavors to maintain its system in a safe condition at all times, once in a while, through human error, a standard procedure is not followed. Edison also states that it has taken additional measures to emphasize to its employees the rules and procedures they must follow for proper maintenance of facilities.
2. October 5, 1998 - Ontario
A palm tree came in contact with Edison's 12,000-volt conductors causing a fire that damaged a fence, shrubs, and grass in Ontario. CPSD found that the palm tree was listed on Edison's line clearing records to be trimmed on August 18, 1998 but that Edison failed to trim the tree.
CPSD found Edison violated GO 95, Rule 35, which requires a minimum clearance of 18 inches to be maintained at all times between conductors of 750 to 22,500 volts and vegetation.
Edison states that it timely attempted to obtain permission from the property owner to remove the tree because it grew near Edison's power lines, but was unsuccessful. Edison delayed in trimming the tree so that the utility and property owner could negotiate the tree's removal. A month and one half later, the fire occurred. Edison states the fire occurred under extremely windy conditions and therefore, it probably would have occurred even if the tree had been properly trimmed (i.e., even if there had been an 18-inch clearance.) Edison also believed that the property owner's failure to grant Edison permission to remove the tree excused Edison's compliance with Rule 35 based on exception 2 to that rule.1
3. August 4, 2000 - Inglewood
A service drop conductor with deteriorated covering came in contact with the metal roof of an apartment building, causing a fire. The fire caused about $2,500 damage to a small portion of the roof of the apartment building. CPSD found that the service drop covering had deteriorated as a result of a long and continuous contact with a palm tree. CPSD also found that Edison completed a detailed inspection (which it also considers its annual circuit patrol) on July 27, 2000 but failed to record or correct the problem. CPSD alleges Edison violated GO 165, Section IV, which requires facilities be inspected to insure reliable, high-quality, and safe operation. CPSD also alleges Edison violated GO 165 for exceeding the maximum one-year period between annual patrols.
Edison acknowledges that its inspector should have discovered the service drop was rubbing against the apartment building roof during the detail inspection, but states that human error caused the oversight. Edison believes its circuit patrols were timely according to GO 165 because one occurred annually (i.e., in April 1999 and July 2000).
(END OF APPENDIX B)
