ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues What is a "Qualified Person"

Mr. Powell;

Just wanted to say that this is an excellent post!
You have brought up a few things for us all to think about.
At a risk of sounding too arrogant, I thought that the guys working with me were doing things as correct as possible, since I tried to teach them the way I have done things [not "Short-Cuts"!!], but who knows. If they have learned something from other Contractors, they are encouraged to discuss it so we can way the differences. Once in a while, a situation comes up like the one you explained where the Electrician made a 120 VAC circuit without a grounded conductor by using the EGC [conduit].

I am now thinking about using some equipment that we have from recent remodel/demo jobs for training. I was thinking about a couple sub panels and a Transformer to explain not only the grounding systems and circuit balancing, but training on live circuit identification. This equipment will never be energized, so the only up-front risk is to be incorrect.

They have a firm understanding of circuit tracing, as it was a major part of site surveys for one of our largest clients. The only drawback is that they are familiar to using the typical tone tracers [we use the Pasar Amprobe model T300], but it shouldn't be the only method that they know, so I'm going to show alternative methods, such as the drill and ammeter technique, or similar ones mentioned on this and other groups by others ASAP.

Thanks for the stories! Just shows that there's always something else to think about.

Scott. "S.E.T."

I hear that the Revise Code Section Proposal 1-178 could, in 2002 have the definition of "Qualified Person" which is in nearly 100 code articles read;

"Qualified Person, One who has skills and knowledge related to the construction and operation of the equipment and has received safety training on the hazards involved."

This would add "safety training" , which in itself could constitute a definition.....in lieu of which the door is probably open for a tidal wave of after market videos for contractors to achieve compliance.....

I mentioned this proposal in my last post, but didn't give any opinions. Being an instructor I might would benefit from this proposal being accepted. Safety training would now be mandated and accidents would not be necessary to show employers the need for training. Now we need to define "safety training." Would instructors and material need to be approved or certified by some entity and who would that entity be?

While I am on the subject let me throw in more lawyers and liability issues. If "safety training" is required for compliance with NEC, the local AHJ is now involved in what was previously only an OSHA concern. Are they going to enforce this Code requirement? Will they increase licensing fees or add inspection fees to cover checking your training records? Are they going to stipulate the requirements for type of training and whose brother-in-law is qualified to give it? Will residential only contractors be required to train to the same standards as insustrial contractors? Can some be grandfathered? How will the insurance companies handle this? Now there is another measurable factor for rate hikes or discounts. When an accident happens the lawyers for the victim or survivors has more grounds to ask for punitive damages or crimminal charges. If traing is required, training must be documented. If there is no documentation "I didn't know that he didn't know" can not be an employer's defense to avoid the willful negligence issue.

These are just some questions. I don't have answers and my opinion of the proposal could go either way.

You raise some very interesting points that I had not thought of. Something that, on the surface seems so simple and like such a good idea can have far-reaching consequences.

That is why lawyers outnumber engineers in this country. And electricians generally think there are too many engineers.

Ahh..... that rotten "L" word for LIABILITY....that's what it all boils down to.... This is probably true catalyst of many code changes. This is the double edge sword bureaucrats wave in almost any organization. So ask yourself, does it really help our trade out in the long haul or not? I mean the guy with the toolbelt and the blisters, not the lawyers......

Does anyone know of a good lawyer and/or bureaucrat bashing forum or can we start that as a thread in this one?

The previous post was entirely in jest. I have more to do than sit around poking fun at parasites.

Now for the serious content.

Since the NEC is a standard for safe installation of electrical equipment I do not believe it should get into requirements for the workers. The use of the term qualified as it is defined now should be enough. If safety traing is required to be considered qualified by the NFPA in 2002, what will be required in 2005, 2008, 2011....? Local authorities already have requirements for licensing. If they feel safety training is required for journeymen or apprentices let them mandate it and enforce as they see proper on their own or leave it to OSHA. If NFPA wants to require safety training in 70E let them define qualified to require safety training for the purposes and scope of that document or require it in some other way. The purpose of the NEC does not include protecting persons from themselves or maintaining electrical eequipment. What in the scope of the NEC requires working on or with energized equipment other than power tools? And if "safety training" includes use of ladders and other non-electrical equipment, what concern is that for a standard making body whose purpose is the "safeguarding of persons and property from the hazards arising from the use of ELECTRICITY"?

I agree, the NEC is a standard, one that i live by and aspire to every day. The problem is that it it heading towards becoming overbearing, more legal than electrical. Fred Hartwell wrote a good article on this a while ago, i respect the fact that he had the gonads to say it the way he did. One must consider future sparky's having to muddle through all of this to make a living......while your local Home Depot will be doing aisleway seminars for a public, most of whom don't know an outlet from an omlet......another good case in point is my home state of Vermont, where single family dwellings are wired by roving packs of monkey's.......no sparky required.....yet for sparky to bid it out it's got to have things like AFCI's next month........which the monkey's will not do...so you see,the changes should work for the sparky as well as the public......or soon you have the problem as pointed out by the powers that be....there's no more sparky's around than 20 years ago.....no one wants to be a sparky.....