MCH Electric, Inc.: OSHA inspections and violations
Fremont, California · Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contractors · NAICS 238210
15inspections
29citation items
$51,658current penalties
Aug 30, 2022last inspection
Since 2002, OSHA inspectors have visited MCH Electric, Inc. in California 15 times.
The most recent inspection opened on Aug 30, 2022 as a planned inspection, in Ceres.
In all, OSHA issued 29 citation items: 9 serious and 20 other-than-serious.
The proposed penalties came to $122,120; today they stand at $51,658, 58% less.
The rule cited most here is 2940.6 (), 2 times.
Among construction employers, the typical cited inspection since 2015 ends with a $3,080 penalty. MCH Electric, Inc. averages $793 across 5 cited inspections.
MCH Electric, Inc. also files yearly injury logs with OSHA, summarized below.
Citation items per year, by inspection date.
California · latest 90 days of OSHA records
1,128employers cited
13 of them in the same industry
Get notified the morning OSHA posts each new citation in California: the employer, the site address, the rules broken and the penalty.
Incident on Oct 4, 2018: Employee fractures pelvis and leg after being struck by back
At 10:00 a.m. on October 4, 2018, an employee was working as part of a crew installing underground utility lines. At some point the employee entered the trench to repair a line that had become detached. At the same time a coworker, operating a backhoe loader, was dumping sand into the trench using the backhoe bucket. During a pass dumping sand in the trench, the employee was struck-by the bucket of the backhoe and was injured. The employee was hospitalized with leg and pelvis fractures.
Citation and rule
Type
Proposed
Current
Issued
Status
Citation 1, item 1
29 CFR 1510(B)
Other-than-serious
$750
$750
Apr 4, 2019
Final
Citation 2, item 1
29 CFR 1541(E)
Other-than-serious
$9,000
$750
Apr 4, 2019
Final
Citation 3, item 1
29 CFR 1541(F)
Other-than-serious
$18,000
$750
Apr 4, 2019
Final
Inspection 342300191 OPENED MAY 4, 2017Closed
Complaint · Partial · Safety · 200 employees at the site · Closed Jun 7, 2021
Incident on May 13, 2008: Employee suffers electric shock from underground switchgear
On May 13, 2008, Employee #1, who was a foreman, attempted to perform cable spli cing in an underground electrical vault, which contained a Trayer submersible va cuum switchgear that had conductors energized at 12,000 volts. The vault was loc ated at a residential construction site in Fremont, California. According to Emp loyee #1, who was the only witness on the day of the accident, his immediate sup ervisor told him to connect cables to the switchgear; therefore, he went to the switchgear to do the requested work. Employee #1 opened the lid to the vault at approximately 8:30 a.m. Employee #1 placed a ladder into the vault to descend in to the vault. Employee #1 stood on the top of the switchgear and Employee #1 did not notice any vibration or noise coming from the switchgear. This contributed to Employee #1 believing the switchgear was not energized. Employee #1 proceeded to remove three candle elbows for terminal conductor points or bushings on the switchgear so that Employee #1 could begin connecting cables to the switchgear. When Employee #1 removed the third or last candle elbow, an electrical flash or large ball of light occurred. The flash generated a loud bang. Employee #1 felt a substantial amount of pain. Employee #1 tried to ascend the nearby ladder to g et out of the underground vault. Employee #2, who heard the loud bang, went to h elp Employee #1 get out of the underground vault. Employee #3 called for emergen cy assistance. The gloves worn by Employee #1 had holes/tears from the electrici ty that entered/exited Employee #1's hands. The gloves were Tool Handz PLUS Rein forced Snug-Fitting types. On the day of the accident, the weather was sunny. Th ere was no water in the underground vault. Employee #1 did not receive electrica l safety training dealing with high voltage equipment. Employee #1 is not certif ied as an electrician/electrical trainee in the state of California. Employee #1 had never used any voltage testing equipment to determine if conductors/equipme nt are energized. According to Pacific Gas and Electric, which owns the switchge ar, the accident resulted in 182 customers losing power. After the accident, Emp loyee #1 was admitted to Eden Medical Center in Castro Valley, California, but w as later admitted to Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, California. Employee #1 was admitted to both hospitals on May 13, 2008. Employee #1 suffered third and second degree burns to hands, and first degree burns to entire surfac e of the face to the neck. Employee #1 also suffered temporary loss of hair on h is head and face. The employer failed to provide any electrical safety training records for Employee #1 after the employer was given a request for safety traini ng records. The cause of the accident was Employee #1 performed electrical work on energized equipment/switchgear without using proper safety controls for energ ized equipment. These controls include using voltage testing equipment before pe rforming electrical work to determine if equipment was energized, having only a qualified electrical worker perform work on high voltage equipment, wearing safe ty gloves that are rated for voltage that may be encountered, and following prop er de-energizing provisions for work on high voltage equipment.
Incident on Aug 22, 2003: Employee burned in arc blast from cutting into pvc conduit
On August 22, 2003, Employee #1, a laborer, was instructed by his foreman to cut into a 3 in. thick PVC conduit so that a branch conduit could be installed. He had hand-sawed 2 in. into the conduit when he contacted an energized, 21 kilovol t conductor. The conductor shorted, causing an arc blast that was contained by t he PVC conduit. Employee #1 sustained first-degree burns from the electric shock . He was transported to Valley Medical Center in Pleasanton, CA, where he was tr eated and released. The employer was cited for serious violations of T8CCR 2940( b), T8CCR 2940(c), and T8CCR 2940.6(a)(1).
From the Form 300A summaries employers file with OSHA each year. Rate = recordable cases per 100 full-time workers.
In 2025, the Livermore site logged 1 recordable injury or illness among about 220 workers: 0.5 per 100 full-time workers, against a median of 0.1 for its industry.
Site and year
Workers
Cases
Days-away cases
Rate
Industry median
MCH Electric
Livermore · 2025
220
1
0
0.5
0.1
7693 Longard Rd Livermore Ca. 94551
Livermore · 2024
220
2
0
1.0
0.1
The rules behind these citations
Current text from the Code of Federal Regulations. Some citations were issued under older wording.
Alert subscribers get notified of each newly cited employer in California the morning it is posted. See the alert plans.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA enforcement data. A citation is OSHA's allegation; employers can contest it, and the status column shows where each item stands. Something wrong on this page? Tell us.