State Board of Stationary Engineers

BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES

STATE BOARD OF STATIONARY ENGINEERS

DATE: December 18, 2007

TIME: 10:00 a. m.

PLACE: 500 North Calvert Street 3rd Floor Conference Room Baltimore, Maryland 21202-3651

PRESENT: Gregory Restivo, Board Member Kevin McLeod, Board Member Karl Kraft, Chief Boiler Inspector Harold Norris, Consumer Member

ABSENT: Andrew Howard, Chair George Maloney, Vice Chair

OTHERS PRESENT: Harry Loleas, Deputy Commissioner Jack Lesho, Executive Director Sloane Fried Kinstler, Assistant Attorney General Brenda Clark, Administrative Aide Bernadine Jones, Office Service Clerk Tim Bagrowski, Deputy Boiler Inspector John Fraska, President of CJJT Inc. Robert McNulty, Manager Washington Gas Light Co. Tom Tucker, Manager Washington Gas Light Co. Mike Addison, Manager Travelers Insurance Mark Freeman, Covanta Montgomery, Inc. David Zalusky, Chubb Insurance Charles Steyer, Account Manager, Tate Engineering

CALL TO ORDER: Greg Restivo, Acting Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Motion (l) was made by Mr. Mcleod and seconded by Mr. Norris to approve the Minutes of the November 20, 2007, business meeting without any corrections. This motion passed by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE SESSION:

Motion (II) was made by Mr. McLeod and seconded by Mr. Norris to approve the November 20, 2007 Executive Session without any corrections. This motion was passed by a unanimous vote.

COMPLAINT COMMITTEE REPORT:

Mr. Kraft presented the Complaint Committee Report to the Board: SE ENG-070002- Resolved- Mr. Lesho will send correspondence regarding the Committee’s decision on the complaint.

SE ENG- 080001- The Committee requires more information for further investigation.

EXECUTIVE SESSION:

Motion (III) was made by Mr. Norris, seconded by Mr. McLeod, and unanimously carried by the Board members of the State Board of Stationary Engineers in attendance to go into Executive Session at 10:10 a.m., 3rd Floor Conference Room, 500 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202. This meeting was permitted to be closed pursuant to State Government Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, § 10-508 (a) (8). The purpose of the session was to consult with Counsel to consider applications filed in accordance with the “grandfather” provision and the renewal and original application process for individuals who had reported prior criminal convictions. Upon completion of this session, the Board convened the public meeting at 10:20 a. m. Motion (IV) was made by Mr. McLeod and seconded by Mr. Norris, to adopt the findings of the Executive Session. This motion was carried by a unanimous vote.

OLD BUSINESS:

(A) Continued discussion on the meeting with School Boards

At the November business meeting, Ms. Kinstler, Counsel, informed the Board that a meeting had been held between Departmental officials and School Board officials to discuss the School Board’s opposition to the way Maryland Annotated Code, Business Occupations and Professions Article, Title 6.5 was ultimately drafted, in which certain language did not reflect that which had been agreed to by the drafting group, which included both Departmental and School Board officials and current Board member, Greg Restivo. Ms. Kinstler continued to explain that during the time of drafting, the psi rating was supposed to be set at 16 psi and above, so as to exclude the systems in most Maryland public schools. Evidently, there was also a belief that a distinction would be drawn between steam and hot water systems, excluding hot water boilers 15 psi and below. At the last meeting of the Board, Mr. Restivo and Mr. Maloney were designated to serve as the Committee to discuss legislation proposed by the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE) and were to report their findings to the Board at this business meeting.

2 However, Mr. Maloney was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Restivo informed the Board that he and Mr. Maloney had met twice to discuss this issue and he has prepared an internal document supporting the position of the School Board for the Board to review. He will submit the document at the next scheduled business meeting. Mr. Loleas informed the Board that Delegate Kryziak, who was the sponsor of all Legislation creating the State Board of Stationary Engineers, is the contact person to whom any Legislative adjustments should be presented. Mr. McLeod discussed with the Board several revisions to the language that could possibly be made to accommodate the required changes. Mr. Norris suggested that the Board form a 2 nd Committee to discuss possible ways of revising language and report back to the full Board at the next scheduled business meeting with the outcome of their discussion. The 2nd Committee formed consists of Board members, Mr. McLeod and Mr. Kraft.

(B) Conversion calculation sheet used for the definition of horsepower

At the November 2007 business meeting, a motion was made to adopt the conversion calculation sheet as part of the minutes for the definition of horsepower. Mr. Lesho informed the Board that the conversion calculation sheet will be included in the November 2007 minutes and will be displayed on the Stationary Engineer’s website. Mr. Lesho also informed the Board that our website will only display twelve sets of minutes at one time and that, each month, the oldest set of minutes is removed to make room for the newest set of minutes. Mr. Lesho suggested to the Board that the conversion calculation sheet be referenced on the Stationary Engineers website with a permanent location. The Board agreed to have Mr. Lesho find a permanent place on the website for the conversion calculation sheet to be referenced for defining horsepower.

(C) Continued discussion on additional information from PSI, the testing vendor

After the November 2007 business meeting, at which Mr. Norris raised a concern regarding his opinion that PSI, the testing vendor, was providing insufficient statistical information regarding the results of candidates taking the Board’s license examinations, the Board formed a Committee, consisting of two Board members, Mr. Norris and Mr. McLeod, to report back to the Department as to what additional information they would like to request from the testing vendor. Mr. Norris stated that he would like to see more detailed cumulative information on the overall performance of those tested. Mr. Lesho informed the Board that he called PSI, the testing vendor and spoke to a representative to request more information on the monthly report. Mr. Lesho was informed that he can retrieve more information on the PSI website referred to as the “Partnership website”. This site will provide the Department with the number candidates, the percentage of passes and failures, as well as individual scores. Mr. Loleas explained to the Board that what is reviewed every month is the typical statistical report provided to all mechanical Boards, but informed the Board that PSI is not limited to that information because the partnership website goes beyond that, with the ability of providing much more information. Mr. Lesho also suggested that Mr. McLeod and Mr. Norris meet with him to review the partnership website to see what information is available and what additional information they would like to require.

Mr. Restivo asked Mr. Lesho for an update on the meeting requested by the Board with PSI. Mr. Lesho informed the Board that he would have to contact PSI to establish a date and time with

3 them and the other licensing Boards within DLLR; therefore the date may not be the same day as the regularly scheduled Board Meeting. Mr. Restivo expressed his concerns to Mr. Lesho that he was informed that PSI has been using coal questions on the examination, and that he would like to discuss with PSI what questions they are using. Mr. Lesho explained to the Board that any applicant that unsuccessfully sits for the examination has the right to request in writing a review process which consists of PSI submitting to the Board a copy of the question(s) and a copy of the applicant’s incorrect answers for Board review, with reference to the particular book from which the question was developed from. Upon the Boards review, the Board will determine if the question was answered incorrect. Counsel to the Board, Ms. Kinstler, also reminded the Board that in order to protect the integrity of the exam, each license exam may include different questions randomly selected from a pool of approved questions. Therefore, any license exam may contain some questions specifically developed by this Board and may also be supplemented with questions generated by a general pool of questions deemed to be acceptable and not Code specific.

NEW BUSINESS:

(A) Discussion with Washington Gas

Washington Gas representatives, Mr. Thomas Tucker and Mr. Bob McNulty, requested to appear at this month’s business meeting to discuss with the Board the possibility of approving several of their employees the opportunity to sit for the 1st grade license examination based upon their qualifications and work experience, as opposed to having to begin at the lower entry level. Mr. Tucker explained to the Board that Washington Gas operates two air/gas peaking facilities, one in Rockville Maryland, the other in Springfield, Virginia. Mr. McNulty explained his concern that at the present time, there is no reciprocal licensing between Maryland and Virginia, the Grandfather provision has ended, and that their employees rotate job sites between Maryland and Virginia. They were seeking information on how their employees might qualify to take a particular license exam in order to comply with new Maryland laws and regulations. Upon discussion, the Board determined that the employees for Washington Gas can complete examination applications and submit them to this Department for the Board to review rather than submitting them to PSI, the testing vendor, for consideration based upon the applicant’s qualifications and work experience.

(B) Statistical Summary Report

The Board reviewed the statistical summary report from PSI, the testing vendor, for the examination updates of total examinations taken, passes, failures and repeat examinations for November 2007.

(C) Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority

Mr. Loleas discussed with the Board that in February 2007, Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (MNWDA) contacted the Board, expressing their opinion that MNWDA employees

4 should be entitled to a license exemption due to having licenses or certifications issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Mr. Loleas explained, that under the current law, the Board does not have the authority to waive statutory requirements for licensure or to exempt individuals licensed or certified by another State Agency. Mr. Loleas informed the Board, that the MNWDA would like to move forward and facilitate an exemption through a Legislative amendment for these individuals who operate waste and energy plants. The MNWDA states that licensure by the Board and Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is a dual process and the safety concerns of each aspect of Waste Energy Plant Operations, are built in the Maryland Department of the Environment Training, and that the MNWDA feels that it should be adequate to be licensed by MDE in lieu of licensure by the Board. The Board requested that more information from the Maryland Department of the Environment on their training program, course content and examination is needed. Mr. Loleas will request that information from the Maryland Department of the Environment and present it for the Board to review at the next scheduled business meeting.

CORRESPONDENCE

The Board reviewed email correspondence from Mr. Roy Hibbert informing the Board that he works for a small company which has hot water boilers, hot water heaters and 2 LP Steam Boilers (all oil fired). His concern is about a continuing soot problem generated by two hot water heaters and that he was informed by his supervisor that this soot does not appear to be a problem.

Upon the Boards review, the Board requested that Mr. Lesho respond to Mr. Hibbert informing him that if he feels he has a safety concern that he may contact MOSH and the Office of the Chief Boiler Inspector with the contact information. Mr. Lesho will also inform Mr. Hibbert that he, as the licensed engineer, is responsible for the boiler. Mr. Lesho will respond to Mr. Hibbert informing him of the Board’s recommendations.

The Board reviewed email correspondence from Mr. Helmut Peiker, requesting information on the structure of job duties for stationary engineers. Mr. Peiker also stated that he was informed by his superior that having a mechanical contractor in to do preventive maintenance on the boilers, once a month, warrants the employees not to be required to have a State license. Mr. Helmut indicated that he was able to find the rules and regulations regarding the boilers but was unable to find the rules and regulations on the personnel that operate them.

Upon the Board’s review, it was determined that more information was needed in order for the Board to give an informed opinion. Mr. Lesho will respond to Mr. Peiker informing him of the Board’s determination and direct Mr. Peiker to revisit the website, for the additional information he was seeking, regarding the rules and regulations governing Stationary Engineers.

The Board reviewed correspondence from Mr. Steve Younker, Management Services Division of Frederick County, Maryland. Mr. Younker’s is requesting the Board to allow his maintenance staff, have the Board’s approval, to apply for licensure under the grandfather provision. Mr.

5 Younker is aware that the deadline for filing was May 31, 2007. Mr. Younker stated that he was informed that the State Board of Stationary Engineers had failed to notify his staff, HVAC, Plumbing and Electrical licensed tradesman, that the grandfather provision existed, and thus they would have been eligible to apply if notification was received in the allotted time period prior to May 31, 2007.

Upon the Board’s review, the Board denied Mr. Younkers request to apply under the grandfather provision, which expired on May 31, 2007 by an Act of the Maryland Legislature. It was determined by the Board that Mr. Younker was misinformed with the information he received. The State Board of Stationary Engineers did not have any obligation to send direct information to other job categories such as HVAC, Plumbing or the Electrical field of any act of the Maryland Legislature. The State Board of Stationary Engineer’s did issue email notification to all Stationary Engineers licensed at the time of the enactment of the new licensing requirements. Mr. Lesho will send Mr. Younker correspondence, reflecting the Board’s decision, and refer Mr. Younker and his staff to apply for the examination through PSI, the testing service.

The Board reviewed correspondence from Mr. Joseph Brown Jr., requesting the Board’s approval, to have his 1st grade license reinstated that expired in 1999. Mr. Brown explained to the Board that he was not financially able to renew his license prior to now

Upon the Board’s review, the Board determined that the license has been expired for such a long period of time that they feel Mr. Brown should apply to sit for the examination to demonstrate that his knowledge of the industry is up to date. The Board agreed to allow Mr. Brown the opportunity to submit his application, directly to the Board, rather than PSI, the testing vendor for in-house review. Mrs. Clark will notify Mr. Brown of the Board’s decision and send him an application for the examination.

ADJOURNMENT:

Motion (V) was made by Mr. McLeod, seconded by Mr. Norris, and unanimously carried by the Board to adjourn the Stationary Engineer meeting at 12:25 p.m.

______With corrections

______Without corrections

______Andrew Howard, Chairman Date