ECN Forum
Posted By: Joe Tedesco New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/21/01 01:22 PM
[Linked Image from joetedesco.com]

Quote
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.

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 11-09-2003).]
Posted By: Bill Addiss Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/21/01 02:39 PM
Joe,

I love that picture!
I notice the new safety training requirement in the definition. I'm sure most will agree that this would be a good thing in theory. Is there any part of the code that stipulates what type of training or how much? Is each jurisdiction going to have to form it's own committees or whatever to investigate this and stay on top of it? Or is that as far as it goes? I'm surprised that some sort of guidelines or reccomendations have not accompanied this definition change. It almost sounds like the AHJ would have to make a determination on a case by case basis who was qualified for what. I'm just a little confused by it at the moment as to how it can work like this.

Bill
Posted By: Joe Tedesco Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/21/01 02:52 PM
Bill:

I guess that most will look at the OSHA 1910.332 requirement for training which gives us certain guidelines. I would like to see something in the NEC and maybe we'll find it in the new Article 80?

Joe
Posted By: Bill Addiss Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/21/01 03:58 PM
Joe,

That (Art 80) would be the place where I would have expected to see it. I see general guidelines for qualification of Inspectors but not Electricians. If that was going to be part of the Application and certification process for Electricians might We end up with many different classifications because of different skills and safety knowledge necessary for different types of work? (ie Hazardous locations and their different classifications)

Another thing, the "skills and knowledge related to the construction and operation of the Electrical Equipment" sort of implies (to me) that some intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Electrical Equipment may be necessary. Does that mean that We have to know Electronics to install a plc? I realize that wording these things is very difficult, I am just picking at it. That would not be the intention, .... Right? [Linked Image]

In short, I think that some rewording or accompanying explanation or guidelines is required. You could have a real flamer here Joe!

Bill
Posted By: Joe Tedesco Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/21/01 07:13 PM
Bill:

Yes, I agree that the flames will begin to fly as soon as the industry is confronted with this new definition.



[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 02-27-2001).]
Posted By: Bill Addiss Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/21/01 09:50 PM
Spell Check?
Oh, yeah, I didn't see that. Did you use it?
I was wondering how "confrunted" got passed up in your message? [Linked Image]

I think that some people may be tired of debating such intangible entities as the "Qualified" Person. It is much easier to point out the shortcomings of a definition than it is to come up with a consise one. I'll go around with you a few times, but take it easy on me OK? [Linked Image]

I don't know as I would have any better Ideas, but I am more interested in knowing the intent of this code change, I mean how should this be interpreted and carried out?

We have other areas in the Code with poorly worded language but We all (most anyway) know what is meant by it so it's not a problem. I can see this as creating much controversy if it is left as is without additional explanation.

To start off, let me ask you - plain English, OK? - What is your opinion, as an Instructor as to how this well-meaning Safety Training requirement should be implemented and according to what guidelines and who should be Judge and Jury on this?
I'm just asking opinions here. I don't mean to put you on the spot but I'd like to know.

Bill
Posted By: sparky Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/22/01 01:30 AM
Ok, here we go... [Linked Image]

What's the real intent of this?

Are we sending Mr. Osha man , heart transplant tool in hand, after the entire trade because of a few bad apples?

Do we go after the licensed sparky's first, that'll play like the gun control deal...

"How long have we had the NEC ? but there is no national license ?" , how many times have you heard a newbee say it.

If you live close to state, or county boarders , the entire ballgame can change with a walk across the street.

So why not look at the big picture, and compliment the trade by a nationally recognized ticket?

[Linked Image]



[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 02-21-2001).]
Posted By: sparky Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/22/01 01:49 AM
Log 3800, the substation includes the words "who & "what"

My question is HOW ?

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Bill Addiss Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/22/01 02:32 AM
Sparky,

I was able to locate those OSHA standards.
http://www.osha-slc.gov/FedReg_osha_data/FED19900806.html

Bill
Posted By: Joe Tedesco Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/22/01 02:47 AM
Bill:

I would use the following to begin when verifying the qualification's of a person as it related to the work being done:

http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshStd_data/1910_0332.html

It will be interesting to see how the electrical industry handles the new definition.



[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 02-24-2001).]
Posted By: Bill Addiss Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/22/01 04:04 AM
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
Posted By: sparky Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/22/01 11:25 AM
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 [Linked Image]

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 ?
[Linked Image]
Posted By: Joe Tedesco Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/22/01 12:53 PM
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).]
Posted By: Bill Addiss Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/22/01 02:21 PM
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
Posted By: sparky Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/22/01 06:27 PM
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.
Posted By: sparky Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/22/01 11:19 PM
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. [Linked Image]
Posted By: gpowellpec Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/22/01 11:34 PM
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
Posted By: gpowellpec Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/22/01 11:51 PM
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).]
Posted By: Joe Tedesco Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/23/01 12:50 AM
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).]
Posted By: gpowellpec Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/23/01 03:44 AM
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).]
Posted By: Joe Tedesco Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/23/01 11:31 AM
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).]
Posted By: Joe Tedesco Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/23/01 02:39 PM
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).]
Posted By: Joe Tedesco Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/23/01 03:25 PM
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).]
Posted By: Bill Addiss Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/23/01 05:29 PM
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
Posted By: resqcapt19 Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/23/01 06:05 PM
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)
Posted By: Bill Addiss Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/23/01 06:29 PM
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! [Linked Image]

Bill
Posted By: sparky Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/23/01 08:49 PM
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.
Posted By: gpowellpec Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/23/01 10:23 PM
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.
Posted By: Besafe Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/23/01 11:43 PM
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.
Posted By: sparky Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/24/01 01:11 AM
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).]
Posted By: gpowellpec Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/24/01 08:59 PM
Sparky,
Where does it say in the scope of the NEC that safety in the workplace or qualifications of workers installing electrical equipment is part of the NEC. It came about as a building standard because building fires were being started by improper installations, not because people were getting electrocuted. How many businesses in the 1890s were concerned about worker safety? The main concern, from an insurance and business aspect, was loss of property and revenue. Read the history of the IBEW and the fatalities of linemen in the early years. Employers claimed the deaths were due to employee error and just got another lineman. The union was influential in safety and skill training that brought those numbers down. Safety has also been improving due to OSHA and civil prosecution of negligent and abusive employers.

Unless the NFPA rewords the scope of the NEC, requiring any training to meet a definition of qualified is outside the scope.

Have you ever read NFPA 70E? This document was created by NFPA at the request of OSHA because OSHA realized the NEC was not applicable to workplace safety. The OSHA Safety Related Work Practices really originated from an NFPA standard. As a matter of fact, the latest revision of 70E is not yet adopted into OSHA, but to be in compliance with OSHA's general duty clause, an employer must be in compliance with the latest 70E. If the AHJ wants to get involved with workplace safety, let it adopt NFPA 70E and learn another standard in its entirety, instead of enforcing a general definition that is out of place in a building standard.
Posted By: sparky Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/25/01 12:52 AM
Gerald;
One would think that an organization dedicated to a "National Electrical Code" all these years,would in some manner advocate , acknowledge, or otherwise condone an electrical license.
Call me idealistic, but I think the two could compliment each other.
One would think that at least ONE of the dozens of organizations that have a ladle in the soup would have stirred this up by now.

As far as unions, my grandparents fought from their sweat shops for them. They marched on Washington long before it was popular, so if I sound a little radical here, it's hereditary. And yes they have done some good. But I don't think those at their inception would like the looks of them now, so let's not even get started down that road...

Despite being opinionated here, I am humble enough to admit my knowledge is limited as to the ongoings of the bureaucracy above me.
I hope those involved have the wisdom, and maybe a little dirt under thier nails, to relate decisions made to the real end result, not twisted statistics collected or presented in a bias manner.
I can only speak for those like myself, at the bottom of this giant managemental triangle , we've seen a lot like this come down the pike, this won't work for a lot of us.
In a certain sense, this is much like those unfunded federal mandates that every municipality will simply add to their personnel policy, and ignore.

I also do not know this 70E, but it has been proven that even I , can be educated.
Posted By: gpowellpec Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/25/01 02:49 AM
Sparky,
Don't feel bad about being unfamiliar with 70E. Few electricians are. Only those who work for companies large enough to afford a class on "1910-331,332,333,334,335, for the low introductory $ 795" have heard of it. When OSHA started writing electrical regulations for employee safety in the workplace they wanted to use consensus standards that were already existing. Doesn't sound like our government huh? They used the NEC for requirements to make the environment safe from an electrical standpoint. But for hot work they realized the Code did not actually address hot work practices. Also, the installation requirements of the Code only indirectly protect people by having the equipment not self-destructing. The safety levels of the Code are okay for equipment, but no overcurrent protective device will keep a person from being electrocuted.

That is where 70E comes in. OSHA requested NFPA (assuming them to already be the experts) to give OSHA a document it could more directly adopt for OSHA standards. 70E is smaller than the average EC&M magazine. I do not know of an outlet for you to purchase one except from tne NFPA. Even the AVO bookstore doesn't list them on their website www.avointl.com. I think they will sell it if someone asks for one, because they have them for some of their courses. It is around $30 from NFPA. http://www.necdirect.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/STORE/PAGES/70E-00.htm?L+necnonmembers+qgfl1429 High price for its size, but if you follow it you will be in compliance with the OSHA requirements.

I believe NFPA 70 (the Code) and NFPA 70E taken separately works well. The NEC should not duplicate 70E requirements because the scope of the two standards are different.

[This message has been edited by gpowellpec (edited 02-24-2001).]
Posted By: gpowellpec Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/25/01 02:53 AM
Bill,
Since Mike Holt has given us the NEC online, maybe you can persuade the NFPA to give us 70E online.
Posted By: sparky Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/25/01 12:21 PM
Gerald,
thank you for the link. $30 or so is something any sparky can cough up, and a small $ to pay for such education. My check's in the mail.

Most of the trade out here in the sticks are one/two man shows, mom & pop biz , got my kid as an apprentice deals. This is despite some of the glorified ad's and answering services that present us as world leaders in the trade.

My point is that there is a trickle down effect that leaves a lot of us either out of the loop , or easily able to ignore what the rest of the world is doing.

Many of us , unable to bid on big jobs, say when a shopping mall is being built, have a "can't beat'em , join 'em" policy. To be honest, the larger jobs like that are the only time we are exposed to any level of saftey in practice. My last experience was with an IBEW "salt" or "stewart", i'm not sure what his title was. He worked right along with us, and tried to apply current saftey standards as we went along. One has to imagine here, field electricians with 20-30 yrs experience being exposed to these standards, to an applicable degree, for the first time. If anything else, he was patient.
Posted By: sparky66wv Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/25/01 02:31 PM
...

[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 02-25-2001).]
Posted By: Bill Addiss Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 02/25/01 04:13 PM
Gerald,

Thanks, I took your suggestion and wrote a letter. I'll keep you all posted. Keep your fingers crossed.

See thread on NFPA 70E

Bill
Posted By: Joe Tedesco Re: New Definition of "Qualified Person" - 11/09/03 12:19 PM
Time for an Update. I see where the 2005 NEC will include a new fine print note.

Quote
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.

FPN: Examples of this safety training include, but are not limited to, training in the use of special precautionary techniques,
personal protective equipment, insulating and
shielding materials, and insulated tools and test equipment when working on or near exposed conductors and or circuit parts that are or can become energized. [ROP 1–130]
© ECN Electrical Forums