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

Gerald:

Did you send in a comment on the proposal for this new definition?

I also believe that we will see the term included in other standards and manuals published by NFPA, such as in 70E.

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

The hazards that the NEC describes include many situations other than electric shock.

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

The new definition will be in the 2002 NEC if there are no changes made at the annual meeting in Anaheim.

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

The following are just comments, Not directed at anyone in particular:


For the sake of those that may be ignorant of the some of the Code making process and it's style, what is the section containing the OSHA regs after the Revised text and before the SUBSTANTIATION: part? It just seems disjointed somehow. Like if it is a recommendation or example of types of training to be included etc, or was that meant to be included in the definition somehow?

From the final Panel Statement it doesn't seem to me that the panel is suggesting any particular course of study or additional certifications necessary. They did remove the word "specific" from the proposed definition which would lead me to believe that they may be thinking "Basic" safety training. And without course recommendations that safety training could even be life Experience gained through Apprenticeship.
Look at the rejected ROP before this one that mentions formalized training and the panel's comments. So it may not be as doom and gloom as it could be, but some tweaking of definition or statement as to intent might be necessary.

This is a very difficult issue I think. To be fair it must also be examined from the side of the AHJ. If deciding who is "Qualified" is left up to an Inspector, and he cannot see any course credits or certifications as to what you as an Electrician may know, that means that He would have to make a judgement call and could be opening himself up to lawsuits if an accident did occur. Think about it. No doubt that Safety is a good thing, there's got to be a middle ground somewhere.


Bill

I know I'm going to take major hits for this, but I don't think the qualifications of the installer have any place in the NEC and believe such rules are outside the scope. These type of rules should be left to OSHA and have no place in the NEC. The inspector should only inspect the physical installation. If the installation is code compliant, who cares about the installers qualifications. Besides, there is no way that this type of rule could be enforced by an inspector.
Don(resqcapt19)

Don,

I'm thinking about it mostly as pertaining to Licensing and Certification. Maybe I'm wrong. Past that I get addled.

In my area I would expect that this would have to be handled at the County level as a requirement for licensing and perhaps renewals. The inspector would not really be involved. My mentioning of the Inspector was because I understand that in some areas He's the only one around. Where my parents are in NH the Fire Marshall is also the inspector and AHJ.

I definitely smell smoke here!

Bill

More like a 5 alarmer Bill.

I don't think any field sparky is really opposed to saftey, but i do think that inviting the OSHA man into the NEC is a bad way to go about it.

This is not the only regulating vs. enforcing agency scenario that has snowballed .

I am also opposed to anyone who would use examples of our deceased fraternal brothers as a scare tactic, as they cannot speak for themselves now.

Thanks, Don.
I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought the scope of the NEC limited it to being an installation standard. But maybe starting all the subsections in 90-2 with the word "Installations" was unintentional.

I don't see why this seen as a problem. I see it as an improvement.
It's a bigger problem when the NEC has a different definition than that of several other standards.
Nothing here mentions licensing, although it can be used if you are in a state that licenses electricians.

Let's say you are in a no license state, and someone wants to use 110-27, 31, or 34 to justify unlocked equipment or rooms.
They might say "everyone here is qualified". I hear that one occasionally.
Now an inspector will have more help from the NEC if they do not want to approve the situation.

Besafe;
Pointing this out in the NEC to people who ignore the NEC is of little gain.

The only call you can make is to OSHA, who will simply bring the hammer down.

It's a failure of the NEC, after 120years to come about a national ticket, so they invite other orgizations like OSHA in to do thier dirty work.

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

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