ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues New Definition of "Qualified Person"

Joe,

"safety training on the hazards involved" is a pretty broad requirement. Working in or around energized equipment is only part of the Hazards. Don't the OSHA regs stated only deal with Energized equipment?

I'm thinking, where is Ladder and Scaffold Safety, use of special tools and techniques in classified locations and items like that?
I don't see any guidelines for those. ie. Using the wrong type of tools in an Explosive atmosphere can be a serious problem.

Are these safety training requirements supposed to be something that has to be met prior to Licensing?

Bill

Worse Bill,
Do meeting the OSHA requirements mean that one can now contract electrical work in the "unlicensed" states..?

I'd be more for additional requirements if there were a level playing field in the first place, I would gladly send the IAEI bullets instead of dues if they, or any other orginization, could help this along.

Add to this the fact that if you live in a remote area, such as I , there has to be a piper cub with a "VIOLATION" banner circling a fatality to get OSHA's attention.

Let's take it another step

Your called to Joe's JB here. the place is a mile long, has more sub-panels than Dones has pills, nothing is marked. The obvious problem is a loose/arcing wirenut(pick one).

How would you proceed here ?

Bill:

The change in the Article 100 definition is really not all that hard to understand. The present term is defined as:

"Qualified Person. One familiar with the construction and operation of the equipment and the hazards involved."

The new proposed term is defined as:

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

The difference between these two definitions shows where "familiar" was replaced with "skills and knowledge" and where "received safety training" was added before "on the hazards involved."



[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 02-23-2001).]

Joe,

I think I understand the principle here is to make sure, via safety training that this person is aware of the Hazards involved.

My last comment was really directed to Sparky, who had said that the paragraphs following the accepted change had laid out the "what" - referring to what the training should consist of. My original thoughts were that it was left wide open as to what (specifically) that training should include. Comments back to me pointed out that the specified OSHA regs were included as guidelines for a required course of study. I am just pointing out that unless I am missing something It does not lay out recommendations for a complete course of study. That still has to be decided by the Adopters of the code.

Is this correct?
(I tried a little formatting for emphasis)

Bill

As i read it, the panel accepted this in part. They did not wish to repeat OSHA in the NEC.

Despite the NEC's history of code updating as to specifics, we have here a definition that can be very broad, as you've stated, in it's interpertation, and has no format for implementation.

It would be more prudent to pursue incorporating such saftey issues into apprenticeship courses, instead of sending out the hatchet man , who will simply enforce whatever he/she chooses to interpet here.

Set us up for saftey, not for failure.

I just received my course registration toady for 1910, 331,332,333,334,335 , for the low introductory $ 795 ! Of course as this is only in the major metro's, we'll need to add hotels, meals & gradituities...

This repeats the ROP almost verbatim

This will most likely repeat the "Safety Fall Protection" requirements a few years back. Not a problem for the fortune 500 big boys, inapplicable to sole proprietors, and all the mom & pop outfits will probably ignore it, so once again, we widen the gap.

In surfing the link, one question arises. If one takes this training, does one need to recert it, or is it simply good indefinitely.

I say this, because of my EMS experience with 1910-1030 & the Ryan White act.To me, the trade(s) could end up scrambling for CEU's for electrical AND OSHA.

Note that, most of the EMS community is smart enough to incorporate OSHA training into thier course curriculum.

How naive of me to forget the vultures in the private sector! Me, I'm looking for the $29.95 video.

Like Bill said, "safety training on the hazards involved" is a pretty broad requirement. You will notice most of the people in these forums who are in favor of this definition change is in the training business. This will be a boon to their industry. Now you, Bill, as a small contractor will have to either develope a training program with documentation or buy training from a third party to be able to prove that someone you already know to be "qualified" is qualified to the satisfaction of the AHJ, if the AHJ gets involved. As a small business that is a large time and money drain. As a small contractor you probably know the qualifications of your people better than a 100 or 200 man shop and supervise them more closely. You may also not have the level of cash flow to be able to meet the requirements as interpreted by the AHJ. With the growth of many towns these days, which of them has the manpower and financial resources to duplicate the effort we, as federal taxpayers, are already paying OSHA for. This definition change will either be ignored or (if the powers in town has a vested interest) abused, or maybe just a duplication of OSHA with no real results, just another cost for contractors to try to pass on to their customers and the city to levy on the taxpaying citizens. What an incentive for customers to use unlicensed and uninsured electricians.

Just what type of training will be required? Training will be required and there will need to be documentation to stand up in a legal venue. Since there is very little work done according to Code that involves electrical shock, arc and blast, you could really avoid training on OSHA electrical safety related work practices by avoiding any hot work. Make it a company policy that there is no hot work and all the AHJ needs to be concerned about is training for use of ladders, safety belts, handtools, trenching, tripping hazards, etc. But be realistic; there is always going to be some hot work needing to be done, if only testing for voltage. Still, the electrical inspector, to insure the electricians have been trained to avoid the hazards they are exposed to will need to enforce the general OSHA requirements, not just the electrical requirements, because most electricians are injured from falls, pinches, cuts, non-electrical burns etc. The definition does not specify electrical hazards, just the hazards involved with installing electrical equipment. What is the hazards involved with running conduit in a trench or ceiling?

When an electrician is killed or injured there is usually an OSHA requirement that has been violated. That is not meant to be judgemental. Everyone makes mistakes. Let OSHA do what we are paying them for: insuring safety of people in the workplace. And let the AHJ do what they were intended for; insuring electrical installations are safe as per the NEC, which is a building standard, not an employee workplace standard.

Every electricain should be working according to NFPA 70E any way to be in compliance with OSHA.

Gerald Powell, Electrical Instructor

Joe,
How does the picture of improperly installed equipment show the person needs "safety training on the hazards involved?" It just looks like he missed basic training on box fill and other NEC fundamentals. He may have been standing on the floor working the box de-energized and safer than walking down the street. He may be an apprentice who is not going to be working anything hot for a couple of years. Does his employer need to spend big bucks for extra safety training so he can make up a de-energized J-box? The picture justifies the need for inspections, but in no way justifies the need for requiring safety training. I don't see any blood anywhere so it is not evident to me anyone got injured or was in any danger at all.
You referenced 1910-332. The Scope of this reg applies to "employees who face a risk of electric shock that is not reduced to a safe level by the electrical installation requirements of 1910.303 through 1910.308". You are promoting training very few people would need for construction and did not mention PART 1926, Safety and Health Regulations for Construction. Are we focusing on the wrong hazards?




[This message has been edited by gpowellpec (edited 02-22-2001).]

Gerald:

The NEC Committee is responsible for rules that will minimize the risk of electricity as a source of electric shock, and as an ignition source of fires and explosions.

The picture I posted above shows work done by an "unqualified person" and one who was not aware of correct installation procedures for electrical equipment.

If you have a problem with the proposed new definition, I would suggest that you challenge the CMP-1 members at the NFPA Annual meeting in May.

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 02-24-2001).]

Joe,
"the NEC Committee is responsible for rules that will minimize the risk of electricity as a source of electric shock, and as an ignition source of fires and explosions"

Isn't that what building codes are for? Can't a construction electrician do this by adhering to the Code without extensive training on shock, arc and blast? Less expensive and more readily avalable training on PART 1926, Safety and Health Regulations for Construction should cover all most construction electricians need. How many maintenance electricians are monitored by an "official" AHJ? Isn't that where most of the shock, arc and blast injuries and deaths occur? The new definition of AHJ will help some with that, but factories will usually be monitored by OSHA before a municipal AHJ.

"The picture ...shows work done by an "unqualified person" and one who was not aware of correct installation procedures for electrical equipment"

EXACTLY MY POINT. The problem with the installation has to do with training of "correct installation procedures for electrical equipment", not safety. Training a person for work he is not likely to do now or later is time and money spent that is not available for the training he needs now.

"electrocuted because of a lost equipment ground"

If the ground was installed correctly and then became defective, there is a maintenance standard for that (NFPA 70B: Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance, 1998 Edition). If it was not installed correctly, that is in violation of the installation standards of the NEC. Where is OSHA Electrical Safety Related Work Practices involved in those?

I probably will not be available to attend the meeting in May. Even if I were, I still see a need to express my opinions in this forum so others who have not made up their minds or may not have given this topic any thought will have more to think about than how much it will cost them for training to keep their qualified workers working because some AHJ interprets a definition broadly.

[This message has been edited by gpowellpec (edited 02-22-2001).]