from St.John’s · Lighthouse at Cape Spear, NL. Cby Earle Goodwin ontracting is a difficult ... ory of Hugh Carroll. Because of Hugh’s concern for the safety ... sented to those

The Voice of Ontario’s ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING INDUSTRY“A supplement to Electrical Business September 2003 issue Canadian Publications Mail Sales products Agreement No. 40665085”

Volume 41 • Number 4

Is Your Project on Track?Is Your Project on Track?

The Ontario

ELECTRICALCONTRACTOR


Postcards fromSt. John’s

Tools that WorkOEB: The Hearing ProcessOntario and Canadian Skills Competitions

Tools that WorkOEB: The Hearing ProcessOntario and Canadian Skills Competitions

The 2003 CanadianElectrical ContractorsAssociation Conference

A catastrophic loss doesn’t come with an “undo” key.

Prevention is the key.

www.federated.caA Northbridge

Financial Company

CONTRACTORELECTRICALELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR

Ontar io E lec t r ica l Cont ractor

3

CONTENTS Volume 41 Number 4 • September 2003

4 Editor’s Message

5 President’s Message

6 Protecting Line Contractors

8 Skills Competitions

10 Ergonomics and Tool Design

12 Riding the Wave on “A Sea of Change”

14 From Layout to Lights On

17 Letters to the Editor

EDITOREarle Goodwin

ECAO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEPresident: Dave Mason, D. J. Mason Electric Co. Ltd., Hamilton

First Vice-President: Brad Vollmer, Vollmer & Associates, Windsor

Second Vice-President: Fred Black, Stevens &Black Electrical Contractors, Markham

Past President: George Boals, Seymour & Boals Ltd., Cornwall

Treasurer: Jim Gruber, JAG Inc., Kitchener

Past President: Case Opdam, Opdam Enterprises, St. Catherines

Director: Peter Bryant, Esten Electric Ltd., Sudbury

Executive Vice-President: Eryl Roberts

PRODUCTIONProduction and Layout:CLB MEDIA Inc., Aurora, Ontario

Production Manager: Hélena KletochkinaThe Ontario Electrical Contractor is the official publication of theElectrical Contractors Association of Ontario. Its purpose is to provideinformation and editorial comment on issues that are relevant to theelectrical contracting industry.

ISSN#0711-3501

170 Attwell Drive, Suite 460,Toronto, Ontario M9W 5Z5Tel: 416-675-3226 Fax: 416-675-7736

1-800 387-ECAO (3226)email: [email protected] Web: www.ecao.org

Volume 41 Number 4 • September 2003

Lighthouse at Cape Spear, NL

by Earle Goodwin

C ontracting is a difficult business.Someone once told me that the wayto build a $5 million electrical con-

tracting firm is to start with $10 million.They’d probably just finished one of thosejobs.

Brian Foster, of Revay & Associates, hasbeen involved with construction manage-ment for more years than he’d like to admit.Over that time he’s analyzed many jobs. Inparticular, he studied 30 projects completedover a decade that expended over 2 millionman-hours. In his article, MonitoringConstruction Profitability, he shares someof the information he gleaned from thatstudy and gives us some bench marks youcan look to when trying to assess whetheryour project is running on schedule andprofitably.

Winston Churchill told the world,“Give usthe tools and we will finish the job.” Tools aresupposed to help us and make us more prof-itable.But the poorly designed tools can costus time and money in ways we may not have

considered. In Ergonomics and Tool Design,Jim Mason, of Pefco Ontario, demonstratesthat the proper tools can save us more thanwe might imagine.

ECAO is very concerned with the competi-tive climate in the power and utility sector.Inparticular we want to make sure that the util-ities are competing fairly for work that ourcontractors have been doing for many years.Last issue,Rob Frank painted the broad brushstrokes of what’s involved in protecting ourrights. In this issue he and HeatherLandymore,of MacLeod Dixon,come back toelaborate on the details in Protecting LineContractors: The Ontario Energy Board’sHearing Process.

Our conference in St.John’s,Newfoundlandand Labrador last June was enlightening andentertaining.As you can see from the cover,the setting was spectacular. And we havemore pictures to rekindle memories for thosewho were there, and (maybe) inspire a bit ofjealousy in those who weren’t.

We also have pictures from one of myfavourite annual events, the Skills Comp-

etition.This year’s event was held in Waterlooat RIM park, where Ontario had its annualcompetition,then ended the week by hostingthe nationals.

And we are pleased to recognize the win-ners of ECAO’s D.J.B.Wright and R.H.(Hugh)Carroll awards and CSAO’s Roy A.Phinnemore Award.

Rounding the issue out, we received a let-ter that took issue with Dave Moncur’s arti-cle on safety circuits that appeared in thelast issue.When I was originally approachedwith the story, I wondered why we shouldbe looking at regulations and standards thatcame out in 1997, and was told that therewas still a lot of confusion on their inter-pretation.Apparently there is.We’ve printedthe letter and Mr. Moncur’s response.

We do appreciate hearing from you.Yourfeedback helps us provide you with articlesthat you find interesting. So, if there’s any-thing you enjoyed and would like to seemore of, or something you’re not hearingenough about, feel free to get in touch withme. In the meantime, enjoy this issue.


4


Editor’s Message

Serving Communities for Over 75 Years

Quality is Our Promise

Our People are the Key

Proud Distributor of

“See the World in a Different Light”

Visit us online @ www.idealsupply.com

by Dave Mason

This is my first message sincebecoming President at the end ofJune, and I want to take this oppor-

tunity to thank the board for their confi-dence in me. I’d also like to thankHamilton’s Brian Rielly and CentralOntario’s Dan Moore for their service tothe board over their terms.A special wordof thanks goes to Case Opdam, a long timemember of the board and executive, for hisguidance and leadership over the years.His term as Past President expired at theannual general meeting and we wish himall the best in the future.

With people leaving, there are new facesat the board, and I’d like to extend a sin-cere welcome to Dan Lancia fromHamilton, John Raepple from CentralOntario and Dennis Tatasciore fromNorthern Ontario. I’d also like to welcomeour new Second Vice President, Fred

Black, to the executive. We have anotherbusy year ahead of us, and I look forwardto working with you.

The first part of this year will be particu-larly busy with the negotiation of a newprincipal agreement. As you are no doubtaware, our principal agreements run forthree years. During that time we have achance to gauge the effectiveness of newmeasures that were put in place in the lastround of bargaining and assess the way thecontract works, in general. Negotiationsallow both sides to address their concernsand develop solutions to the problems thatinvariably arise.

This is why it is so important to be intouch with your local Electrical TradeBargaining Agency (ETBA) representative.Although they are contractors themselvesand get a good sense of the issues throughworking with the contract on a daily basisand counselling other contractors whenproblems arise, much can be learnedthrough discussions held between con-tractors when a specific grievance isn’t on

the table and we can look at the contractdispassionately.

Naturally, negotiations aren’t just one-sided and it is often difficult to achieve thechanges we might like to see. But it isimportant,nonetheless, to have these openand frank discussions among ourselves inorder to develop the vision we need toguide us.

In the meantime, the work of the associ-ation continues as we continue to meetthe targets in the strategic plan.As I said, itis going to be a busy year, but the ECAOboard of directors and its committees arelooking forward to the challenge.


5


President’s Message

Contact Earle Goodwin, EditorElectrical Contractors Association

1-800 387-ECAO (3226) email: [email protected]

We want your comments

In 1999 the Board of Directors cre-ated an award to honour the mem-ory of Hugh Carroll. Because of

Hugh’s concern for the safety of theprovince’s electrical workers andECAO’s desire to foster it, the Boarddecided that this award would be pre-sented to those firms who had demon-strated sound safety practices throughtheir exemplary safety records.

This year, awards were presented inthree of the Rate Group 704 categorieson June 21 in St. John’s before the startof ECAO’s annual general meeting.ECAO is proud to recognize the follow-ing companies for their outstandingsafety records:

• Gemor Electric Limited - less than50,000 hours

• Trade-Mark Industrial Inc. - 50,001 to200,000 hours

• Guild Electric - 500,000 + hours

Their were no entries in the 200,001– 500,000 hour category or the RateGroup 830 categories.

R. H. (Hugh) CarrollSafety Award

We know benefits.pension plans • group benefit plansflex arrangements • group RRSPscommunications • asset consulting

www.eckler.ca

TORONTO

(416) 429-3330WINNIPEG

(204) 988-1586VANCOUVER

(604) 682-1381 • •MONTREAL

(514) 848-9077•

BARBADOS

(246) 228-0865HALIFAX

(902) 492-2822QUEBEC CITY

(418) 780-1366 • •TRINIDAD

(868) 624-9291JAMAICA

(876) 927-4329• •


6


Protecting Line Contractors: The Ontario Energy Board’s Hearing Process

By Robert Frank and Heather Landymore

Utilities can be prompted to comply with rules and regulationsin an informal manner through the customer complaint anddispute resolution process (as described in the last issue of

The Ontario Electrical Contractor). Only the Ontario Energy Board(the “Board”) however can formally enforce compliance througheither an order or decision. It is typical for the Board to initiate pro-ceedings,particularly if the issue is likely to be controversial. It is alsopossible to request that the Board make an order or decision througha formal application to the Board. The Board will reach a decisionafter holding a hearing to determine the issues involved.

Even if the Board has commenced the hearing process, it is stillpossible to participate. The most common way of participating is asan “intervenor”. Any individual, group or company that has an inter-est in the hearing must file a letter of intervention with the Board.The Board will review your letter, and notify you if you have beenaccepted as an intervenor in the proceeding. The ElectricalContractors Association of Ontario is currently intervening in thehearing on amendments to the Transmission System Code thataddress competitive options for construction and design of trans-mission connections.

Commencing a Hearing - How does the Hearing Process start? The hearing process starts when the Board commences a proceed-ing on its own initiative, or when an applicant files an applicationwith the Board. Otherwise, hearings can only be commenced if theBoard receives a reference from the Minister of Energy or theMinister of Natural Resources.

Before a public hearing is held, a document called a Notice ofApplication or a Notice of Public Hearing is published in relevantnewspapers or served on the individuals involved. If the applicationrelates to an area that is designated as bilingual under the FrenchLanguages Services Act, the Notice of Application will also be pub-lished in the French daily and weekly newspapers within the servicearea as well.

The Notice of Application or Notice of Hearing gives a brief outlineof the matters to be addressed at the hearing (including whether ornot the proceeding will be written or oral). It also provides a descrip-tion of the procedure to be followed should an individual, group orcompany wish to participate in the proceeding.

Hearings before the Board are conducted in a less formal mannerthan proceedings held before a court of law.The Board conducts itshearings under authority of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 andthe Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) which sets out the min-imum rules of procedure the Board must follow.As well, under theauthority of the SPPA, the Board has formulated its own Rules ofPractice and Procedure to govern its proceedings.

Where the Board holds an oral hearing, two to three members aretypically assigned to hear each application (termed the Hearing

Panel),but two members can constitute a quorum under the Board’slegislation. The Chair or Vice-Chair, may, in exceptional circum-stances, authorize a single member of the Board to hear and deter-mine a matter.

Procedures Involved in a Hearing.1. Filing an Application.As above,any individual,group or company other than the Board cancommence the hearing process through filing an application withthe Board. The application must contain a clear and concise state-ment of the facts, the grounds for the application, the statutory pro-vision under which it is made and the nature of the order or deci-sions applied for.

As above, if you are participating as an intervenor, you must file aletter of intervention with the Board. This letter must contain yourinterest in the proceeding and the extent to which you intend to par-ticipate. The Board may reject your request to intervene if you fail toprove that you have a direct interest in the proceeding,or if it is clearfrom your letter of intervention that you do not intend to actively par-ticipate.

2. Pre-Hearing Proceedings.Although not mandatory,the Board may,in any proceeding,direct theparties to participate in technical conferences, issues conferencesand/or pre-hearing conferences, establish interrogatory proceduresand/or direct the parties to participate in alternative dispute resolu-tion. The Board typically convenes such pre-hearing proceedings inorder to clarify and if possible narrow the issues.

A. Conferences.The technical conferences are to be held for the purposes of review-ing and clarifying applications, interventions, replies,evidence of theparties or interrogatory matters.

The Board will hold an issues conference if it feels that it wouldassist the Board and/or the parties, or if the documents that havebeen filed do not sufficiently set out the matters that will be in issuein the proceeding.

The Board,either of its own accord or at the request of a party,maydirect the parties to participate in a pre-hearing conference. A pre-hearing conference will be held in order to: (a) admit certain facts;(b) permit the use of documents by any party; (c) recommend theprocedures to be adopted;(d) set the date and place for the hearing;(e) consider the dates by which any of the steps in the proceedingare to be taken;(f) consider the estimated duration of the hearing;or(g) deal with any other matter that might simplify or expedite theproceeding.

B. Interrogatories.Parties have an opportunity to ask other parties questions that relateto the issues to be addressed in the hearing. The process, which isdone in writing, is known as the interrogatory process.


7

CONTRACTORELECTRICALELECTRICAL CONTRACTORInterrogatories are to be directed to the party from whom the infor-mation is sought, and must contain specific requests for clarificationof a party’s evidence,documents or other information in the posses-sion of the party.

C. Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”).The Board may establish Practice Directions for ADR, and may makeparticipation in an ADR conference mandatory. Only parties areallowed to participate in an ADR conference, unless the Board andthe parties agree otherwise, which prevents observors and individu-als, groups or companies who have filed comments, but are not par-ties, from participating. Intervenors can participate in ADR confer-ences because they are considered parties to the proceedings. If theparties reach agreement, then a settlement proposal must be filedwith the Board. The Board may base its findings on the settlementproposal if the Board accepts the settlement proposal as a basis formaking a decision.

3. The Hearing. The Board must hold a hearing unless:(a) the proceeding is frivolous,vexatious or commenced in bad faith; (b) the proceeding relates tomatters that are outside the jurisdiction of the Board;or (c) a require-ment for bringing the proceeding has not been met.

The majority of the Board’s oral hearings are held in one of its twohearing rooms at its offices located on the 25th floor at 2300 YongeStreet, Toronto. In instances in which the matters under reviewhave generated substantial interest and the Board determines thatit is appropriate to encourage public participation within the ser-vice area of the utility, the Board will schedule hearings in appro-priate venues within the area to facilitate the public’s access to thehearing.

The hearing will be conducted in either English or French. Unlessotherwise requested, the hearing will be conducted in English. Anyrequest for a hearing to be held in French should be made to theBoard Secretary as soon as possible in order to allow for the Board tomake arrangements for an appropriate translator or the service of aninterpreter.

4. The Decision.The Board may issue its decision either orally or in writing. TheBoard must provide reasons for its decision on the request of anyparty. All parties to the proceeding will be advised of the time ofthe oral ruling.

A decision on the issues raised in the application will be made assoon as possible. Applications that contain complex issues (such asmajor rate cases or references) can be expected within 90 days afterthe conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the hearing. The time forthe release of the decision for less complex hearings may be shorter.

Copies of written decisions are issued to all parties to the proceed-ings. All Board decisions are public documents, and therefore themajor cases are published and made available to the general public.Copies may be obtained by contacting the Board’s Customer ServiceCentre. Major decisions are also available on the Board’s website atwww.oeb.gov.on.ca.

Once the decision has been issued, typically the Board will shortlythereafter issue an order directing the implementation of the Board’sdecision.

5. The Appeal.The Board’s decisions are subject to various types of appeals. Any ofthe parties to the hearing may file a motion with the Board request-ing that the Board rehear or review any application. The Board willreview the request, and has the power to alter or amend any previ-ous order made by it through a subsequent order.

Any Board decision may be appealed to the Ontario DivisionalCourt, but the scope of such an appeal is limited to matters of lawand jurisdiction. No factual matters may be appealed to theDivisional Court. An appeal to the Divisional Court must be com-menced within 30 days after the Board makes the order, unless theDivisional Court grants leave to extend the appeal deadline.

The final method of appeal is to the Lieutenant Governor inCouncil. This is a petition to the Cabinet of the Ontario Government.Any party or person interested may file a petition within 28 days ofthe issuance of the order with the Clerk of the Executive Council.Cabinet may confirm the Board’s order,or require the Board to rehearthe matter. It is unlikely that a proceeding would reach this stage,butit is nevertheless a possibility.

Robert Frank is a partner and Heather Landymore is an asso-ciate at Macleod Dixon LLP, an international law firm that spe-cializes in national and international energy law services, witha particular emphasis on electricity, natural gas and emissionstrading. Robert’s practice focuses on advocacy work in theenergy sector.

Ontario and NationalT his year, in addition to staging the

14th Ontario Technological SkillsCompetition, RIM Park in Waterloo

hosted Skills Canada’s national competi-tions. Skills Ontario started on May 25, withthe competition on May 27 and closing cer-emony on May 28. By May 30, the competi-tion area was reset for the start of the 2-daynational competition.

ECAO, through the Joint ElectricalPromotion Plan, has been an active sup-porter of these competitions for manyyears, and this year was no exception.

We ran two wiring competitions, one forsecondary school students and one for post-secondary students, as well as the networkcabling specialist competition at the provin-cial level.The winner of the post-secondarycompetition went on to compete againstnine other provincial winners at the nation-al competition that we also ran.

Dave Spena, of Durham College, beat outKen Rivers of Humber College and RobertWoods of Durham College in the NetworkCabling Specialist competition.

In the secondary school wiring competi-tion, gold went to Nathan Parsons of theWellington Catholic Board. Silver was wonby Darcy Martin of the Wellington DistrictBoard, and bronze went to Toronto’sAndrew Bell.

At the post-secondary level, anECAO/IBEW apprentice from Ottawa, Dave

Powell, prevailed over two apprenticesfrom Conestoga College, Scott Hickey andRyan Rawn, who won silver and bronze,respectively.

Dave Powell went on to win the nationalcompetition. This is the second year in arow that one of our apprentices has wonthe Ontario event and gone on to win thenationals.

ECAO and the IBEW also joined with theother organized trades in the OntarioConstruction Secretariat’s area to providehands-on displays for the thousands of stu-dents who visited the competition site.Visitors were able to make wire joints,bend

conduit, splice communication cables andfit them with connectors, try a light bulbidentification quiz and see displays of trafficcontrol systems and advanced householdwiring. For their participation, they weregiven an indoor frisbee and information onhow to enter the trade.


8


Ontario and National

Provincial Post SecondaryInside Wiring Competitors.

Back (l-r): Dave Powell,Leonard Oosterhof, Giuliano Traetto, Mike Keddie, Matthew Curtis, Scott Hickey, Kelly Fulcher, Dave McNabb, Justin Fotheringham

Front (l-r): Steven Tonkin,Ryan Rawn, Robert Lacasse, Wojciech Furczon, James Murphy, Pierre Rochon, Bill Kirkland

Students try their hand at a crimp connectionon a telephone cord.

Putting the pieces together in the SecondarySchool project

Skills Competitions


9


Skills Competitions

National competitors.

(left to right) Nick Burtney (Sask.), Ed Gregory (NB), Donald Snow (NL), Tyler Shaver (YT), Andrew Watt (BC), Devin English (MB), Dave Powell (ON), Robert Boisvert (AB), David Sudworth (NS), Mike Broussard (NWT)

Punching down the Network CablingSpecialist project.

Winners of the Ontario Post Secondary Inside Wiring Competition (l-r): Scott Hickey (Bronze), Ryan Rawn (Silver), and Dave Powell(Provincial and National Gold)

Figuring out the Provincial PostSecondary project.

by Jim Mason

I n the budget they show up as a cost.And there is no doubt that they can becostly. But tools should make you

money,by allowing you to take on tasks thatare beyond the limitations of the humanbody and/or increasing productivity.

Let’s, first, look at the cost of tools.There’s the obvious purchase price, but

there is more. In many cases, there is thecost of training to ensure the tool is usedcorrectly, the cost of consumable items(drill bits, dies, fuel, etc.) and other mainte-nance costs. But one cost that we oftenneglect to assign to tools is the cost of lostproductivity due to injuries.

Tools are supposed to help us and makeus more productive. However, many toolsdemand more of the operator than they cangive on a prolonged basis.They can causeyou to work in awkward positions, orrequire a great deal of force to operate, orsimply need a small amount of force butrepeatedly.

The damage done can be as minor asfatigue, or can range to permanently dis-abling, as in carpal tunnel syndrome orother repetitive stress injuries. All injuriescan be expensive,as shown in the followingillustration.

As we can see, the major injuries are lessfrequent but more costly. Conversely, minorinjuries have low costs associated withthem, but the volume is higher. Fatigue, forexample, not only causes a drop in output,

but may require you to increase your crewsize to allow workers to spell each other offto avoid wearing themselves out. Or it canresult in increased costs to repair work theoperator was too tired to do properly thefirst time (for example, insufficient pressurebeing applied to a crimp connection).

Contrary to the impression given above,tool designers do not intentionally set outto inflict pain on their customers.The factof the matter is, until recently, they werefocused on accomplishing the assignedtask, and paid very little attention to theeffects on the person who would have towork the tool. It has only been in the lastfifty to sixty years that the science ofergonomics has been around to guide themin creating better tools.

Simply put, ergonomics is the science oftaking human and environmental factorsinto account in designing safe and effectivetools and processes. Ergonomists study ourlimits and how we interact with our workenvironment. For example, in designing atool, they would look to see that it:

• Has handles that distribute pressureacross the palm

• Is designed to provide the requiredforce

• Has handle orientations that allowstraight wrists

• Reduces or (ideally) eliminates handand arm vibration

• Reduces repetitive motion require-ments

• Allows operator to work in a comfort-able position

• Is designed to be operated by workersof varying heights, weights, etc.

Tool designers have also been aided bytechnological advancements. For example,let’s look at crimpers. Linemen have used along handled tool that looks somewhat likea large pair of pruning shears for manyyears.The length of the handles was neces-sary to develop the force necessary tocrimp the metal sleeve around the wires.This resulted in the lineman having to movethe handles through a wide arc. If he wereworking alone, he’d often have to resort to

resting the lower handle on his hip so thathe’d have a hand free to hold the connec-tion in place. Many times, he’d be workingin an awkward position. It’s not surprising,therefore, that repetitive stress injurieswere not uncommon in this line of work.

Repetitive stress injuries are caused by:• Force• Repetition, and• Bad posture

This one task has two of these elementsand, depending on the worker’s duties, hasthe potential for repetition, as well.

To overcome situations like this, tooldesigners often look to develop powertools as a solution. A well-designedergonomic power tool all but eliminates theneed for brute force, and allows the opera-tor to work in a comfortable position.

One of the problems that come withpower tools is the power source. Recentlybattery power has become a popularchoice. Batteries are ideal because they canbe used in environments where space is ata premium and electrical power might notbe available.Batteries have come a long wayin the last few years.They’ve become morepowerful and more compact. They hold acharge longer, even under load. And theycan be recharged in minutes where it usedto take hours.

The benefits of ergonomically designedpower tools are readily apparent.Productivity goes up because tasks are com-pleted more quickly and operator fatigue isgreatly reduced or eliminated. Costs fortool-induced medical claims are reduced (infact, some disabled workers might be ableto return to the workforce).Workers aren’tlost to injury, which eliminates additionaltraining costs for replacement workers.And crew sizes can often be reduced.

There is no doubt that ergonomic powertools cost more, initially, than their manualequivalent. But there is a differencebetween cost and value.A discussion with areputable tool distributor could pay big div-idends in the long run.

Jim Mason is President of Pefco Ontario, adistributor of tools and supplies for the elec-trical contractors and the utility industry.


10


Ergonomics and Tool Design

RECORD KEEPING MADE EASY WITH

JOB-SITE JOURNALSJOB-SITE JOURNALSKeep accurate records of each project with day-to-day entries in CECA’s Job-Site Journal. It was developedby ECAO’s Standard Practices Committee specifically for electrical contractors. Such a Journal is especiallyvaluable because its detailed documentation is admissible evidence for substantiating claims caused bysuch things as delays, extras or damages.

DURABLE - bound with a soft cover. Pages are undated so that the first page corresponds to the first day of the job.

EASILY IDENTIFIABLE - the words Job-Site Journal and the CECA logo are embossed in gold on a black cover.

CONVENIENT SIZE - 7" x 8 1/2" JOB-SITEJOURNALCOST - $12.99 each plus 8% PST and 7% GST

(includes shipping* and handling)*Canpar regular ground service

SPECIAL MEMBER PRICE:12-41 journals $11.00 each

42 or more $10.00 each

Distributed exclusively by:

CANADIAN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION170 Attwell Drive, Suite 460Toronto, Ontario M9W 5Z5

Tel: (416) 675-3226 • Fax: (416) 675-7736 • 1-800 387-ECAO (3226)

NAME: TEL:

COMPANY:

ADDRESS:

CITY: PROVINCE: POSTAL CODE:

NUMBER OF COPIES: @ $ PLUS 8% PST:

GST# 124124207 PLUS 7% GST:

AMOUNT OF CHEQUE ENCLOSED:

VISA # EXP:

NAME SIGNATURE

ORDER YOUR SUPPLY OF JOB-SITE JOURNALS TODAY

T he bar keeps rising, year after year,according to ECA BC’s executivevice president, Richard Campbell.

And he should know, as British Columbiainitially set the standard 3 years ago.

Everything was perfect in St. John’s,Newfoundland and Labrador for this year’snational Canadian Electrical ContractorsAssociation conference, co-hosted byECAO,June 18-21.There were icebergs andwhales in the harbours, and the weather,with the exception of rain on Friday, wassuperb.

Appropriate to the locale, the theme ofthis year’s conference was “A Sea ofChange”, which was also the title of JoeCaruso’s keynote address. Mr. Caruso’sbusiness session was entitled,“If the Horseis Dead,Get Off”,which looked at the futil-ity of doing things the same way eventhough the reason we do them haschanged.

Other speakers addressing the changes

we’re facing were WillKoroluk, who guided usthrough the pitfalls andrewards of the internetand software for contract-ing; Dean Roebothan andPatrick Kearney of AliantCommunications, whoshowed us some upcomingtrends in wireless commu-nications; and DwightNoseworthy and CarolineRheaume of AssanteCapital Management, whogave us tips on succession planning. Wewere also treated to a presentation by JohnEfford,Member of Parliament for the federalBona Vista-Trinity-Conception riding, whogave us a little history of the province andpresented some of the current opportuni-ties and challenges it faces.

Delegates and their guests had the oppor-tunity to explore historic St. John’s and envi-

rons through walking tours, boat tours, din-ner theatre and forays into the heart of St.John’s night life,George Street,with its manypubs and bands.

The conference concluded with diningand dancing at the Gala, which featured themusic of Billy and the Bruisers, a ten-pieceband that kept the dancers in our group onthe floor all night.


12

Riding the Wave on

“A Sea of Change”Riding the Wave on

“A Sea of Change”

Kissin’ the “cod”. A must for a proper Screechin’ In.

St. John’s from Signal Hill

Billy and the Bruisers kept the dance floor full. Canadian Idol fansmay recognize the female vocalist.

A local artisandemonstrates hercraft at theWelcomingReception.

Conference Chair, Brad Vollmer (right), thanks WillKoroluk for his presentation.


13

Icebergs at Cape Spear

Patrick Kearneydemonstrates newwireless devices

John Efford, MP for BonaVista-Trinity-Conception

CECA board members and guests. Standing (left to right): Garry Fitzpatrick, Jean Provost, Richard Campbell, Rick Lavergne, Brian Leverick, Willard Kondro, Fred Cahill, Lucy Roberts. Seated (left to right) Alain Paradis,Rick Brodhurst, Case Opdam, Eryl Roberts.

by Brian Foster

T he bid got you the job and you arenow holding your breath. How real-istic was the bid? Should it now

form the basis of the job budget and thecrew size? Is there something else, some-thing reasonably simple, that we can do tomonitor our profitability, our time, our cost,as the job proceeds? This short article setsout to provide some useful suggestions anda little encouragement for those with such apredicament on their hands.

Let’s assume the bid led you to anticipatethe following costs:

1. Direct Materials: 37%2. Indirect Materials:5%3. Direct Labour: 36%4. Indirect Labour: 10%5. Site & Business Overhead: 5%6. Profit: 7%

Purchasing materials (1), especially with-in the electrical construction industry, is anart in itself, although some often see it as aminefield with all those options and dis-counts, to say nothing of the minimumrequirements of the specification.This is notwithin the particular expertise of thisauthor, and being an almost ‘fixed cost’, itwill not be addressed in this article. Sufficeto say that all too frequently the early profitsmade in purchasing are agonizingly offsetagainst losses incurred in direct labour andtime related expenses.It is this aspect of ourbusiness (the ‘at-risk variable costs’) that isbeing put under the microscope here. Howthis 36% (3) fares will determine the fate ofthe other 27% (2+4+5+6).

Having monitored more than two millionactual construction man-hours on morethan 30 projects during the past decade

(incidentally where the combined bidssupported only one million man-hours), itis possible to offer some simplistic analyses,which may prove of assistance to thosecharged with managing the profitability ofelectrical construction projects. Table 1 isthe result of analysing five electrical sub-contracts on which some 350,000 man-hours were expended. By its nature (tail-end-Charlie) the electrical sub-trade isexposed to the project’s delays and disrup-tions, which are often caused by the pre-ceding trades.Anyone who has kept graphsof overall project progress will know thesimple guideline for establishing the coordi-nates for the so-called standard S-curve;when 40% of total project time has elapsed,then project progress is normally 30%;when60% of time has elapsed, then projectprogress is also 60%.This however reflects


14


From Layout to Lights OnMonitoring Construction Profitability

Build on a solid foundation.

Our Construction Law Group is regularly retained to act on a variety of construction

related matters. From drafting complex design build agreements to litigating multi-party disputes

including tendering, breach of contract, negligence and construction lien claims, Goodmans has

the clarity of vision and depth of experience that ensures results. To deal directly with Goodmans’

Construction Law Group, contact Howard Wise at 416.597.4281.

GOODMANS LLP / BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS / TORONTO / VANCOUVER / HONG KONG

the progress of all trades. The structural trades will naturally beahead of these coordinates and the finishing trades will be behind.But how far behind should the electrical trade be? The five jobs inTable 1 were not ideal or perfect jobs.Each was subject to changes,delays and disruptions.None of these jobs were completed on orig-inal budget, but because an independent party had closely moni-tored them,the changes were priced suitably,and timely notice wasgiven concerning ‘impact costs’ being incurred.

Table 1Percent Job A Job B Job C Job D Job E AverageActual ofTime 5 Jobs10% 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2%20% 7% 4% 4% 4% 7% 5%30% 13% 6% 12% 9% 11% 10%40% 24% 10% 21% 15% 16% 17%50% 38% 27% 28% 28% 28% 30%60% 52% 48% 41% 38% 45% 45%70% 68% 91% 60% 56% 73% 70%80% 84% 98% 85% 70% 96% 87%90% 96% 99% 98% 89% 99% 96%

By averaging these five jobs, it can be seen that when the elec-trician has been on site for 40% of the anticipated time frame only17% of the forecast hours will have been expended.This is onlyan observation not a strict rule, however the intention here is tocoach the electrical superintendent into making such observa-tions throughout the life cycles of all his or her jobs. Simple cal-culations of time and cost can be made and considered whensuch in-house historical data is available.

Obviously the ability to forecast with some reliability is all-important.All too often the trade contractor is not measuring jobprogress with any sophistication, the periodic billing being theonly indication of earned value. Is there a simple way to assesselectrical job progress? During the first 10% of actual time on thejobsite the layout function is the most important activity. Fromthis activity some vital information becomes available with whichto start purchasing bulk quantities of conduit.This same informa-tion can assist in measuring progress.From experience the authorsuggests that, in the typical project, some 20% of electrical man-hours goes into installing the entire network of conduit.Knowingthat the bid estimate carried 100,000 feet of conduit and 66,000feet of conduit has been purchased and delivered, a tour of thejobsite might indicate that 8,000 feet is still on the deck in bun-dles, therefore some 58,000 feet (58%) must have been installed.Conduit historically represents approximately 20% of the overalljob man-hours, therefore it follows that almost 12% of the overallelectrical labour has been earned through conduit installationalone.

Table 2 sets out a simple breakdown of typical electrical sub-trade scope.The eleven activities are allocated ‘progress points’.This allocation can be derived either from the estimate or by per-sonal judgement based on historical data or ‘gut-feel’. In thisexample the conduit has earned the job some 12-progress pointswith another 10-progress points having been earned across theother activities.

Table 2 Progress Progress Percent Points

Activity Points Installed EarnedConduit Distribution 8 70% 5.60

Branch 12 50% 6.00 Cable/Wire Distribution 8 15% 1.20

Branch 2 10% 1.20Terminations Distribution 7 3% 0.21

Branch 13 2% 0.26Equipment 8 50% 4.00Panels 5 35% 1.75 Devices 10 16% 1.60Lights 12 2% 0.24Testing 5 0% - Totals 100 22% 22.06

Man-hours Worked . . . . . . . . . 8,957Performance Index . . . . . . . . . 406 (man-hours per 1% progress)Forecast Final Man-hours . . . . 40,600

Assessing the “Percent Installed” every other week should bedone with due consideration to purchased quantities (where appro-priate). Obviously terminations completed cannot be in excess ofcables pulled and equipment/panels installed. Cables/wires pulled


15


Continued on page 16

cannot be in excess of conduits installed. Normally, the super-intendent can prepare the above information in no more thanone or two hours of his or her time.This is a relatively minor dis-ruption to all of the other superintending tasks that must bedone.

The forecast reported in Table 2 is based on a linear extrap-olation from this point in the work.However,if the PerformanceIndex is graphed as shown in Illustration 1, then the trend canbe monitored and considered throughout the life of the job.Note that the x-axis represents job progress (not time) and they-axis represents the Performance Index (PI).The path of the



16

Proud associates of the ECAO,Specializing in the design and

development of employee group benefit and pension programs from

1 employee to 2000, We concentrate on service.

Continued from page 15

CONTRACTOR'S GUIDE TOWORKPLACE SAFETY AND

INSURANCE

Now AvailableNow Available

Written in plain language. Specifically for electrical contractors.

Applicable to all construction employers.

$50 + 7% GST (Postage included)

Order forms available at www.ecao.orgor Tel: (416) 675-32261-800-387-ECAO (3226)Fax: (416) 675-7736

trend provides a simple but reliable tool for forecasting the future pathas well as provoking the questions of what is causing any off-trend(s).

This type of information is vital to effective management of the pro-ject.The budget is 32,000 hours and change orders only supplement thisto 36,000 hours.Pending extras might account for another 2,000 hours.What is causing the forecast overrun of 3,000 hours? Is it the impact ofthe extras? Is it all the stop/start disruption being experienced? Is it theovertime being worked? Is it because the work was delayed into winterand the building is not enclosed? Is it because the bid was too low? Whatcan be done to mitigate this situation during the remaining 78% of thejob? Will the project schedule be extended, or will crew sizes beincreased? Has the completion schedule been manpower loaded basedon a reliable forecast or is it based on an out-of-date budget? Are we cre-ating a project delay by being under-manned?

The electrical contractor can nominate someone in-house to ensurethat this type of analysis is carried out or it may wish to consider the ben-efits to be gained by having an external monitor oversee the analysis andreceive periodic reports explaining man-hour overruns, their causes andtheir impacts.

However,the most important question comes with a contractual oblig-ation in mind — should the client be put on notice of your intent to recov-er impact costs that have been,and continue to be,beyond the control ofthe electrical contractor? Or should the pending extras and future extrasbe priced in such a way as to ensure recovery of impact costs?

Pictures still tell more than a thousand words, but will you have thepictures? Bitter experience tells us that once the lights go on it’s too lateto prepare the pictures. Layout is where it should begin.

Brian Foster is a consultant who specializes in construction labourproductivity with Revay and Associates Limited, a national firm ofConstruction Consultants and Claims Specialists.


17


R egarding our article on SafetyInterlocks in the last issue,Doug Nixwrites:

I read the article “Safety Interlocks – MCRsDon’t Cut It”in Volume 41 Number 3 recent-ly after one of my customers brought it tomy attention.

We are also in the machinery safety busi-ness and I have been evaluating industrialequipment for many years.

In my opinion, Mr. Moncur has madesome strong overstatements in his article.First the article has vastly oversimplified thesubject. Second, the emergency stop cir-cuitry in a machine, while it may be part ofthe safeguarding circuit in some designs, isnot considered to be a safeguard and thus isnot generally considered to be part of thesafety related part of the control system.Let me expand on this a bit.

Safeguarding circuits are composed of

safeguarding devices, such as interlockswitches, safety mats, light curtains andother devices that are intended to preventinjury by detecting an intrusion into thedanger zone of the machinery and stoppingthe hazard before injury can result. Assuch, the need for reliability in these cir-cuits is driven by the type of hazard safe-guarded and by the risk of involvementposed by the design. In order to rationallyand adequately design the safeguards on amachine, knowledge of the intended use ofthe machine and a risk assessment isrequired. It is possible to reduce this workif a product family standard exists for themachinery. An example would be CSAZ142-02 for presses. In these cases, thetechnical committee that created the stan-dard has assessed the dangers present inthe machinery and prescribed minimumsafeguards required.

The emergency stop circuit, however,cannot detect an intrusion into the dangerzone. Instead, it is generally the first thingpressed after someone is already involvedin the hazard. The next action is normally tocall 911.

I will not dispute that a degree of relia-bility is required in this circuit,since you cer-tainly want the power off when someone isinjured, however you can also use themachine’s disconnecting means to achievethe same result. The machinery safety stan-dards do not address emergency stop cir-cuits in the same way that they deal withinterlocking for this very reason. Regulation851, the regulation in Ontario that requiresPre-Start Health and Safety Reviews formachinery under Section 7,does not requirethat machinery have an emergency stop,only that it shall be clearly identified andlocated within reach of the operator. CSAZ432-R1999 does not require an emergencystop, but does make provisions when theyare used. Two standards that do requireemergency stop circuits for industrialmachines are NFPA 79-00, ElectricalStandard for Industrial Machinery, andIEC 60204-1:00 Safety of Machinery –Electrical Equipment of Machines – PART1: General Requirements. Neither of thesestandards makes any mention of reliability inrelation to the emergency stop circuit, butthey do define different types of emergencystop methods.

Mr. Moncur has stated that circuits, suchas that shown in Figure 2 in the article, arerequired on all machinery. This is simplynot true. A review of some of the key stan-dards that deal with control reliability, suchas ISO 13849-1:99, Safety Related Parts ofControl Systems, CSA Z434-03, IndustrialRobots and Robot Systems, and ANSI RIA15.06-99, Industrial Robots and RobotSystems, all show that there are degrees ofreliability in these circuits and that riskassessment is a basic necessity in determin-ing the degree of reliability required.

ISO 13849-1 provides five categories ofreliability: B through 4.The robot standardsuse a different system, providing eight cate-gories of reliability: R1 through R4.Depending on the component selection,which Mr.Moncur did not address at all, thecircuit shown in Figure 2 could meet ISO13849-1 Category 3 or 4 requirements.Figure 1 could meet Categories B, 1 or 2requirements.

I think it is important that engineers,technologists, technicians and electriciansworking in the safety field have a strongunderstanding of these processes and themeanings of these categories so that we caneffectively guide our designs and our cus-tomers through this thorny area.

Mr. Moncur’s approach is certainly con-servative,applying the highest degree of reli-ability in all cases. However, it may not benecessary to go to this level, nor desirable,nor cost effective. I agree that articles of thistype are necessary to help educate mem-bers, but unbalanced articles like this arelikely to cause an unnecessary panic, losingthe desired effect of educating the reader.

Mr. Moncur responds:By its intended nature as a primer for theprofessional electrical contractor, the arti-cle was intentionally generic in nature. Ido not believe it was oversimplified. It wasconfined to a discussion of compliance tothe most generic standard CSA Z432-94,Safeguarding of Machinery. It was notintended to be an in-depth treatise on thesubject of compliance with the OntarioHealth and Safety Act. Machine specificstandards, such as the two mentioned byMr. Nix were only alluded to.

I cannot agree with Mr. Nix’s statement


Letters to the Editor

Continued on the next page

A t the Construction Safety Associa-tion of Ontario’s annual generalmeeting held on May 3, Bill Baird

was presented with the association’s RoyA. Phinnemore Award, which recognizesan individual whose contributions to acci-dent prevention have been significant.Billserved as safety director at Guild Electricand is a past president of IBEW LocalUnion 353 in Toronto.Bill helped establishCSAO’s ECAO/IBEW Joint LabourManagement Health and Safety Commit-tee and served on their Provincial Healthand Safety Committee throughout the1990’s.

The Roy A. Phinnemore Award is consid-ered the Ontario Construction Industry’smost prestigious health and safety honour.

Phinnemore Award for Baird

Phot

o co

urte

sy o

f CSA

O

that “the emergency stop circuit, how-ever, cannot detect an intrusion intothe danger zone.” I referenced Section7.3 of CSA Standard Z432-94 in my arti-cle that provides a definition of anemergency stop. It states:

An emergency stop device, whenoperated, shall stop the machine,through actuation of a brake or othermeans, as quickly as is necessary toguard personnel (see Clauses 7.4 and7.17). Where an emergency stopincorporates a friction brake, suchbrakes shall be of the “normally on”type and shall utilize the externalpower source only for the release ofthe brake. An emergency stop is notan alternative to guarding. Handles,bars, push buttons, etc, used for actu-ating the emergency stop shall becoloured red and be readily accessi-ble. Push buttons used for emergencystop shall be of the mushroom headtype.

Where there is more than one con-trol or work station, an emergencystop push button shall be positionedat each station. It is essential thatrelease or resetting of the emergencystopping device does not cause themachine to operate. Restarting shallonly be by operation of the normalstart control.

This definition is not limited to apushbutton as Mr. Nix suggests. Iwould submit, in consultation withMinistry of Labour Inspectors andRegional Engineers, that the emer-gency stop device includes, but is notlimited to,gate limit switches, light cur-tains,bars, and pushbuttons.

My statement that Figure 2 circuitsare required on all machinery shouldhave been expanded upon to statethat, once a risk assessment has beencarried out and hazards to workersdefined and rated,all circuits where, inthe opinion of the person performingthe risk assessment:• a worker could be injured if not

for the implementation of a safetycircuit in lieu of a physical guard,

and • the potential injury to the worker

could be more than a minor injury,THEN a safety circuit such as shown inFigure 2 is required. He is correct thatnot all safety circuits, at this time,require a circuit such as Figure 2.Thearticle was written with Cat.3 and Cat.4 circuits in mind as there are very fewinstances where Cat. 1 or Cat. 2 risksoccur in an industrial situation.However, for the cost of a safety relay,it is prudent to incorporate such a cir-cuit as the minimum standard.

There can be a lengthy philosophi-cal discussion as to whether or notCategory 4 can ever be achieved, but Iwill leave that for a discussion over afew refreshments with Mr.Nix.

I will agree that the approach isconservative. As a ProfessionalEngineer, I have a legislated duty toensure the public safety. As such, thefinal test that I apply to any review ofsafety circuits is to consider whetherI would want one of my family mem-bers to be the machine operator.After having satisfied myself that agiven machine is safe enough for aloved one to operate, I then have areasonable assurance that it is safe forany operator. I take it as a compli-ment that Mr. Nix agrees that by fol-lowing this approach one is assuredof the highest degree of reliability inall cases. To review to the minimumstandards, if I understand Mr. Nix’sposition correctly, is not, in my opin-ion, always a safe practice. It is myexperience that the cost of ensuringworker safety is not excessive and, inthe rather litigious society that welive in, the extra capital cost is mini-mal compared to the legal costs ofdefending oneself in court should aworker be injured.

Again, I tried to present a genericprimer for the professional electricalcontractor and would submit that itwas only that. If a result of the articlewas that customers start discussing theneed for safety circuits with their con-tractor, then only good things canresult from this.


18


If you are interested in advertising in the

Please email Candice Moller at:

[email protected]


LettersContinued from page 17

E CAO’s prestigiousD. J. B.Wright Awardwas presented to

Wayne Gatien, the 9th

recipient since the awardwas created in 1992, justprior to the annual generalmeeting in St. John’s,NL,onJune 21.

The Douglas J. B. WrightAward was created in 1992 by the ElectricalContractors Association of Ontario and the OntarioElectrical Construction Co. Ltd. to pay tribute toindividuals who best exemplify the dedication andcommitment to the electrical contracting industryas exhibited by Doug Wright through his years ofservice.

His nominators pointed out Wayne’s efforts overthe last ten years on behalf of the line contractorsin the province through his appearances before theMacdonald Committee, and meetings with succes-sive energy ministers to secure legislated safe-guards, some of which are the best in NorthAmerica.

They also noted his service to the broader indus-try through his involvement as President of ECANorthern Ontario; President of the Electrical &Utilities Safety Commission;President of the ECAO;Chair of ECAO’s Industry Conference, PR and LineContractors committees; member of the ElectricalTrade Bargaining Agency and director of theElectrical Safety Authority.

In accepting the award,Wayne smiled as he won-dered whether someone was hinting that heshould retire, alluding to the age of previous recipi-ents when they received their awards. But, he saidthere is still much that he wants to accomplish, sohe will be around for some time to come.

D.J.B. Wright Award

• Expert interpretation of project plans and specifications

• Complete packages that meet allrequirements

• Local assembly capabilities fromworld class manufacturing facilities

• The industry's broadest product range• Special requirements understood and

done right• Reliable administration of drawings,

exceptions, changes, and deliveryschedules

You can count on WESCO and Cutler-Hammer teamwork to keep you "On Time"and "On Budget" for your next power distribution project.

WESCO and EATON’s Cutler-Hammer business unit team-up to provide solutions forOntario’s most successful power distribution projects.

Together We Deliver

www.wesco.ca 1 (866) 937-2622

www.cutler-hammer.ca 1 (800) 268-3578

Documents

from St.John’s · Lighthouse at Cape Spear, NL. Cby Earle Goodwin ontracting is a difficult ... ory of Hugh Carroll. Because of Hugh’s concern for the safety ... sented to those