Draft
State of Oregon
ELECTRICAL AND ELEVATOR BOARD
Regular Meeting Minutes
December 19, 2002
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nathan Philips, Chairman
Frank Regalado, Vice-Chairman
Sherry Asher
Michael Broomfield
Brian Christopher
Walt Conner
Gordon Grote
James Johnston
Michael Miner (arrived at 9:45 a.m.)
Tim Nicol
Richard Orr
Nolan Shefstad
Wayne Sylliaasen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Lindberg (excused)
Sara Medlock (excused)
STAFF PRESENT: Mark Long, Administrator for BCD
John Powell, Chief Electrical Inspector and Board Secretary
Andrea Simmons, Interim Manager of
Policy and Technical Services
Jim Hanson, Manager of Regulatory Services
Joanie Stevens-Schwenger, Manager of Tri-County Serv. Ctr.
Jim Runyan, Chief Elevator Inspector
Roseanne Nelson, Chief Compliance Officer
Allen Aschim, Chief Compliance Officer
Richard Baumann, Policy Analyst
Louann Rahmig, Rules Coordinator
Debi Barnes-Woods, Division Boards
Recorder/Coordinator
GUESTS PRESENT: Garrett R. Lang, Multnomah County
Karen Dale, BOLI/ATD
Jerod Broadfoot, NECA/IBEW Local 48
Paul Jenkins
Craig Perkins, City of Corvallis
Fred Simmons, Washington County
Les Browne, Electrical Consulting Education Services
Don Wolf
Roger Heatherly, Yamhill County
Lee Clark, Yamhill County
Jim Pierce, Intertek Testing Services, (ETL)
Jay Jackson, Oregon State University
Dave Barnhart, City of Portland
Electrical and Elevator Board DRAFT
December 19, 2002 app: _______
Page 2
Deb Marinos, JATZ, Area Z
Donald Faulkner, City of Portland
Rick Thomas, IEC Oregon
David Paulson, Sprint
Alan McCall, INTEL
Gary Gibbs, INTEL
James L. Davis Jr., Northside Electric
Doug Aljets, Keizer Electric
Terry Hatch, NECA
Walley Farnham, Farnham Electric
John Patterson, President of OSIA
John Miller Executive Director of OSIA
I. BOARD BUSINESS
I.A. Call to Order
Chairman Nathan Philips called the Electrical and Elevator Board to order at 9:35
a.m. The meeting was held at the Building Codes Division, Conference Room
“A”, 1535 Edgewater NW, Salem, Oregon.
I.B. Roll Call
Thomas Lindberg and Sara Medlock were absent (excused).
I.C. Approval of Agenda and Order of Business
Chairman Philips RULED the agenda approved as mailed.
I.D. Approval of the November 21, 2002 Board Minutes.
Corrections to the November 21 minutes were as follows:
Page 3 paragraph 6, delete detrimental, and insert critical.
Page 9 last paragraph should read, “Motion by Mike Broomfield to recommend
denial of Jefferson County’s request for electrical program assumption.”
Chairman Philips RULED the November 21, 2002, minutes approved as
amended.
I.E. Date of the Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting
January 23, 2003
Electrical and Elevator Board DRAFT
December 19, 2002 app: _______
Page 3
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mark Long, former Manager of Policy and Technical Services explained that the
last time he was before the board he had accepted a job-rotation with the
Department of Administrative Services. With that position, he had the opportunity
to share with other State Agencies how important the State Boards are in helping
Building Codes Division carry out their responsibilities. Mr. Long announced that
this was his first week as Administrator of Building Codes Division and he is
looking forward to working directly with the boards again.
Regulatory streamlining will be a priority for BCD including looking at getting
electronic permitting and integrating some building department activities related
to the construction industry. The division will be looking at ways of helping the
state economy by playing a lead role in large projects, publicly funded projects,
and or state supported projects in streamlining them through the system.
Administrator Long briefly discussed the budget. The goal is to stabilize revenue
expenditures providing consistent customer service. Administrator Long
explained that the last biennium, the division was 2.2 million dollars ahead. This
biennium, the division should be 2.3 million dollars ahead. The next biennium,
the division should be 3.3 million dollars ahead.
Roger Heatherly, Chief Electrical Inspector for Yamhill County spoke
concerning the consistent problems with signing supervisors in his area. He said
that his expertise is with codes, not with Administrative Rules. The Chief
Electrical Inspector for the State of Oregon said that the signing supervisors
should be available during regular business hours. The rules do not specifically
say that they have to be full-time employed and working 40-hours a week.
Mr. Heatherly had concerns about the division’s computer system for licensing.
His issues were that (1) the computer systems are inaccurate, and (2) BCD’s
compliance section gives different answers than the Chief Electrical Inspector.
Mr. Heatherly said that the way he interprets the Administrative Rules for signing
supervisors is that an electrical supervisor must be available within two business
days of formal notification. There is no indication that the signing supervisor has
to come to the office to pull the permits or sign in front of a specific individual.
He said that a signing supervisor’s name is used to forge stacks of permits. He felt
that changes to the Administrative Rules specifically for signing supervisors
should occur.
Lee Clark, Yamhill County Electrical Inspector, said that he works with Mr.
Heatherly. Mr. Clark distributed copies, Exhibit “A”, of a preliminary compliance
report on an individual. Mr. Clark said the initial work for this case was inspected
and approved. Mr. Clark received information that additional work was preformed
on the property, which constituted a visit to the job site. The individuals present
admitted to completing additional electrical work for D Industrial Company and
then asked Mr. Clark to leave the property. Mr. Clark filed a preliminary
compliance report with the state. The state determined there was insufficient
evidence concluding a violation of the Oregon State Code had occurred.
Electrical and Elevator Board DRAFT
December 19, 2002 app: _______
Page 4
Chairman Philips asked Jim Hanson, Manager of Regulatory Services when an
individual is holding tools and admits to an inspector that additional electrical
work was performed, why is the compliance staff saying that there was
insufficient evidence? Manager Hanson said that when the division receives a
suspected violation, the compliance staff works with the program area –such as
the Electrical Chief, or his staff- to determine whether a violation did occur. For
this specific case, additional information was added that the compliance section
had not seen. Manager Hanson assured the board that since his appointment in
October to manage Regulatory Services, his plan is to aggressively pursue
compliance cases.
The permits were in the jurisdiction of the City of Sheridan. Mr. Clark received
information that there are not enough funds in the City for compliance. Chairman
Philips asked Manager Simmons to look into program review for the City of
Sheridan. Ms. Simmons agreed.
James L. Davis Jr. Northside Electric, said that he has been in the electrical
industry for 17 years as a shop owner. He has continuously employed supervising
electricians to sign permits, and to add input and technical electrical expertise for
the electricians working in the field. He understands that an individual has to
complete 5-years in the apprenticeship program, and pass an exam to become a
journeyman electrician. In order to become a supervising electrician, an individual
must work an additional 4-years in the industry before sitting for an exam. Mr.
Davis mentioned the 2-year residential apprenticeship program, which is limited
to wiring single multi-family residential projects. He said that an individual was
in the program for 24-months before becoming a journeyman residential
electrician. The journeyman residential electrician was able to obtain his
contractor license, has now purchased a commercial electrical permit for a
company that has completed 24-months in an apprenticeship program.
Terry Hatch, NECA, said some issues identified were that supervisors are living
out of the area, and some are signing for more than one contractor. Contractors
are signing for other contractors, and inspectors are signing for permits. Mr.
Hatch felt that the intent of the law is being circumvented, which creates a
potential danger to the citizens of Oregon. Mr. Hatch distributed copies of,
Exhibit “B”, job ads for journeyman supervising electricians. Some ads were for
part time signing supervisors. Compliance issues are not taken seriously, and the
signing supervisors should be checked at the local level.
Doug Aljets, signing supervisor for Keizer Electric, suggested BCD update
their computer system to cross-reference with the Construction Contractors Board
with the intent of verifying this type of information. He used several examples of
the divisions’ information not being accurate when checking with CCB.
Walley Farnham, Farnham Electric said his company has been in business
since 1920. Electrical inspectors signing permits for shops and completing
electrical work is what is happening in the industry. As a contractor for the State
of Oregon, Mr. Farnham pleaded with the Electrical and Elevator Board to fix the
problem with the signing supervisors. He volunteered to be a committee member
to help resolve the issue.
Electrical and Elevator Board DRAFT
December 19, 2002 app: _______
Page 5
Chief Powell explained that he reviews compliance cases based on current rule
and law. There are statutes that allow exemptions, and for every compliance case,
the alleged violator has the right to a hearing. The hearing is before an
administrative law judge, and the burden of proof is with the division.
Chief Powell said the division is taking steps in resolving these issues. The last
electrical renewal, it was required that all contractors provide signing supervisor
information before renewing. An electrical contractors license is issued to a
supervising electrician. Now signing supervisors are pursued when violations
occur. Signing supervisor information will be available on the BCD Web-Site.
Chairman Philips thanked all individuals who testified and soon appointed them
and Brian Christopher to a task force with Tim Nicol as Chairman for the intent to
review issues and bring ideas to the Policy Committee.
Walter Conner recommended that the division move forward on this issue to
develop a training program for inspectors through compliance. He suggested that
program review also be used for educational purposes.
III. REPORTS
Joanie Stevens-Schwenger, Manager of Tri-County Service Center and Project
Manager of the division’s web site, gave a brief report on the up-coming
streamline project for the availability of all board packets on-line. She explained
that the Tri-County board packets are available through the web with the
plumbing board packet to follow in February. Copies of BCD Board “Web
Packets”, Exhibit “C”, were distributed.
Jim Hanson, Manager of Regulatory Services briefly updated the board on the
overall compliance cases. He said that the compliance section has surpassed 1000
cases as of December for 2002. The electrical and elevator compliance cases were
585.
III.A. Compliance Cases – Roseanne Nelson and Allen Aschim
1. Repeat Violator, J & J Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., was before
the board on a previous violation. The division recommends approval of
the consent order with civil penalty assessed.
MOTION by Sherry Asher to adopt division recommendation.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
III.B. Summary of compliance actions previously taken by the division for cases
III.B.1., through 14. (No board action required)
Tim Nicol expressed concerns with III.B.2., of the summary report. He asked if
the case was considered a first time violation. Chief Aschim said that he would
review the case and provide a report at the next board meeting.
Electrical and Elevator Board DRAFT
December 19, 2002 app: _______
Page 6
Walt Conner questioned III.B.8., of the report. The report indicated the permit
was issued to a homeowner for a commercial building. Chief Nelson said the
report was incorrect. It should read that the permit was issued to the property
owner, and not the homeowner.
III.C. Staff Report
Andrea Simmons, Interim Manager of Policy and Technical Services gave a brief
report on the legislative concept the division would be introducing that relates to
compliance. Copies of LC 834 Draft, Exhibit “D”, were distributed.
Legislative session begins in January, and Manager Simmons plans to provide a
monthly report to the board on bills that may effect the division.
Chief Powell distributed copies of a letter to the Multi-State Reciprocal
Agreement Executive Committee, Exhibit “E”. He said that Oregon would
continue to reciprocate with those individuals that meet our minimum licensing
requirements for apprenticeship and training.
Chief Powell stated that the continuing education would continue to reciprocate
with Oregon and Washington as it has in the past.
Chief Powell distributed copies of Building Codes Division Interpretive Ruling
for Article 90.4 of the 2002 National Electrical Code “special permission”,
Exhibit “F”, and explained how it is applied.
Chief Powell brought to the board’s attention that the auditing team had
completed the first audits of the semi-conductor program at Intel and Precision
Airconnect. A report will be provided at the next board meeting.
New ideas for continuing education are being brought forward to the Policy
Committee since having a discussion with Fred Simmons and Deb Marinos.
III.D. Staff Report – Jim Runyan
Jim Runyan, Chief Elevator Inspector said that the injured inspector would be out
of commission until April 2003. Chief Runyan assured the board that the position
is being temporally filled by a retired inspector.
IV. COMMUNICATIONS - None
V. APPEALS – None
Electrical and Elevator Board DRAFT
December 19, 2002 app: _______
Page 7
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Board approval of the hearings officer’s report on permanent rules to
replace the temporary rules which will eliminate conflicts concerning
the jurisdictions’ reporting dates.
Richard Baumann, Policy Analyst explained that the permanent rules are
needed to replace temporary rules that are due to expire March 29, 2003.
The rules would eliminate conflict concerning jurisdictions’ reporting
dates. The hearings officer recommended that the administrator adopt
OAR 918-308-0020, 918-308-0060, 918-308-0200 and 918-308-0210 to
become effective January 1, 2003.
MOTION by Mike Broomfield to adopt hearings officer’s
recommendation for OAR 918-308-0020, 918-308-0060, 918-308-0200
and 918-308-0210 to become effective January 1, 2003.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
B. Board approval of the hearings officer’s report on the proposed rules
for Division 400 Safety Code for Elevators.
Jim Runyan, Chief Elevator Inspector distributed copies of Division 400
Safety Code for Elevators, Exhibit “G”, for review. He gave a report on
the hearing held in October for the proposed rules. At the hearing there
were comments made by Ole Olsen, Hunter Products, and written
comments provided by the Port of Portland. The Port of Portland’s
concerns were related to the proposed escalator step/skirt index testing and
potential upgrades to their 24 escalators at the airport. In addition, the Port
of Portland has concerns with the definition of “authorized personnel”.
Chief Runyan tried to clarify at an industry meeting that there are two
aspects of maintenance; (1) interactive maintenance and testing, and (2)
operational maintenance and testing. Those proposed definitions were
clearly defined in the report distributed.
Due to the questions and concerns with the definitions, Chief Runyan
proposed an amendment to OAR 918-400-0333 for clarity: (3) Except
where allowed by law, interactive testing and maintenance checks shall be
performed only by licensed elevator personnel. Operational tests and
maintenance checks shall be permitted to be performed by authorized
personnel as part of operational procedures.
Chief Runyan recommended that the Electrical and Elevator Board
approve ASME A17.1a 2002, A18.1b, 2001, A90.1b, 2001 and the latest
revisions to the Oregon Elevator Specialty Codes to be adopted January 1,
2003.
Vice-Chairman Regalado said that the industry was under pressure from
the US Consumer Product Safety Commission to resolve issues
concerning step/skirt indexing. He said that at least 20 percent of escalator
accidents are from skirt entrapments, which has resulted in loss of limbs.
Electrical and Elevator Board DRAFT
December 19, 2002 app: _______
Page 8
He felt that by giving the building owners more time and not requiring
brushes installed instantaneously would only result in further accidents.
Richard Orr stated that the testing per escalator takes approximately one
hour with a cost of $130 per unit. The cost to install the brushes per unit
would be approximately $300.
Chief Runyan said that what the committee was told when reviewing the
installation of the brushes, that the cost would be close to $6,000 to
$8,000, not $300. For the step/shirt index testing, the cost could be $2,000
an hour.
During the code committee process, the costs associated with step/skirt
indexing were quoted incorrectly. The committee recommended that the
step/skirt index testing be optional due to the expense. Chief Runyan said
that –if necessary- the testing and additional equipment could be made
mandatory later.
Richard Orr recommended that the board move forward on the testing and
make the repairs optional.
Chairman Philips stated it was important that industry come to a
consensus on this issue. He suggested that the board (1) defer the issue
back to committee for further review, (2) recommend approval, or (3)
accept an amendment to the proposed rules.
Manager Simmons said if the board chooses to send the proposed rules
back to the committee, it would delay the implementation date although
the elevator code may be adopted at any point in time during the year.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Frank Regalado to send the proposed
rules back to committee for further review.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
C. Board approval of HB 2153 revised draft rules and the policy
contained in the modifications made to the penalty matrix.
Manager Simmons explained that the Building Codes Structures Board
had some amendments to the proposed rules and the proposed penalty
matrix. She pointed out the changes made that were included in the board
packet.
MOTION by Mike Broomfield to approve revised HB 2153 draft 7 rules
for filing on January 1, 2003.
There was a concern from Tim Nicol that the proposed penalty matrix may
not address a violator that had commented several violations before being
caught then only being considered a first time violator.
Electrical and Elevator Board DRAFT
December 19, 2002 app: _______
Page 9
Brian Christopher and Mike Broomfield felt that the board should rely on
the expertise of the compliance staff to resolve issues such as this that may
occur.
Chairman Philips said that the Electrical and Elevator Board has the
authority not to accept a penalty assessed.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Manager Hanson reminded the board that the penalty matrix is not rule it
is policy.
MOTION by Tim Nicol to approve the policy contained in the penalty
matrix.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Request for equivalency for Limited Maintenance Electrician’s
License by Don Wolf.
Chief Powell explained that Don Wolf was previously licensed as a
limited maintenance electrician who allowed his license to lapse. Mr. Wolf
applied for a limited plant journeyman’s license, which his application had
not reflected the minimum requirements. Mr. Wolf requested his
application to be changed to a limited maintenance electrician. His
application was denied. A hearing was requested by Mr. Wolf. The
administrator law judge found that Mr. Wolf did not meet the minimum
requirements set forth in administrative rule.
Don Wolf briefly reviewed his work history with the board. He felt that
his extensive experience in industrial control systems was equivalent to
the board’s requirements.
Chairman Philips addressed Mr. Wolf by asking him if he disagreed with
the hearings officer’s conclusion. Mr. Wolf understands what the law
requires.
Chief Powell encouraged Mr. Wolf to supply more information to
supplement his application for re-review.
MOTION by Walt Conner to deny Donald Wolf’s request for
equivalency due to the information provided on the application because it
did not meet minimum licensing requirements set forth in administrative
rule.
Electrical and Elevator Board DRAFT
December 19, 2002 app: _______
Page 10
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
B. Request for equivalency for General Supervising Electrician’s License
by Paul Jenkins.
Chief Powell explained that Paul Jenkins has requested to sit for the
general supervising electrician’s exam with many hours of work
experience obtained in Oregon while not being properly licensed. Mr.
Jenkins had additional information to report to the board.
Paul Jenkins distributed copies of completion certificates, Exhibit “H”,
for board review. The board reviewed the documents and concluded that
the certificates were not relevant to the hours required.
MOTION by Tim Nicol to deny equivalency for general supervising
electrician’s license by Paul Jenkins.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
C. Board approval of BOLI Apprenticeship and Training Standards.
Karen Dale, BOLI/ATD explained the proposed Training Standards.
Chairman Philips asked Ms. Dale for additional information concerning
the Renewable Energy Technician JATC program. Ms. Dale explained
that this Standard was proposing two apprentices, to one journeyman ratio.
This is not a ratio that the apprenticeship council would continue. She said
that the standard is set to sunset in four years. The council approved the
Standard upon approval from the Electrical and Elevator Board.
The council has asked Ms. Dale to provide a progress report on the
standard in 6-months if approved. She offered to share the report with the
Electrical and Elevator Board.
Tim Nicol expressed his uneasiness with approving the standard with a
two to one ratio.
John Patterson, President of OSIA and John Miller, Executive
Director of OSIA
Mr. Miller explained that there are four renewable energy technicians in
Oregon. The program is in the process of being established so the two to
one ratio is temporary until that process is complete.
Electrical and Elevator Board DRAFT
December 19, 2002 app: _______
Page 11
MOTION by Walt Conner to deny the renewable energy technician
JATC standard based on the two to one ratio.
Due to the board’s motion, Karen Dale recommended that the committee
representatives agree to the one to one ratio.
AMENDED MOTION by Walt Conner to approve the renewable
energy technician JATC standard for a one to one ratio.
MOTION CARRIED
Tim Nicol was not in favor of the motion.
MOTION by Mike Broomfield to approve the remaining Apprenticeship
and Training Standards.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Electrical and Elevator Board Policy Committee will meet at 1:30 p.m.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Nathan Philips adjourned the meeting at 12:30 p.m.
Debi Barnes-Woods
Division Boards Coordinator/Recorder
Exhibits:
A Preliminary compliance report on Brian Steward, Agenda Item II.
B. Job ads for signing supervisors, Agenda Item II
C. BCD Board “Web Packets”, Agenda Item III.
D. LC 834 Draft, Agenda Item III.C.
E. A letter to the Multi-State Reciprocal Agreement Executive Committee, Agenda
Item III.C.
F. Building Codes Division Interpretive Ruling for 90.4 of the 2002 National
Electrical Code “special permission” and how is it applied, Agenda Item III.C.
G. Division 400 Safety Code for Elevators Draft 2, Agenda Item VI.B.
H. Certificates related to experience gained by Paul Jenkins, Agenda Item VII.B.