Qualified Person. One who has skills and knowledge related to the construction and operation of electrical equipment and installations, and has received safety training to recognize and avoid the hazards involved. In addition, one who is authorized to test, energize, clear, ground, tag, and lockout circuits and equipment in accordance with established safety practices. Trained in the proper care and use of protective equipment, such as rubber gloves, hard hat, safety glasses or face shields, and flash resistant clothing, in accordance with established safety practices in accordance with NFPA 70E®, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace.

Brings some of 70E and NEMA AB-4 into the NEC.

There are far too many electrical accidents around the country, and many situations where the installer, sideline engineers, and others get killed when the accident takes place, we had a few here in Boston recently. The engineer with his sleeves rolled up, and the electrician is DEAD!

The NEC needs to have the safety items in it, and electrical permits should not be given out unless the person who is taking out the permit understands the hazards involved and can verify proper use of PPE for all who are on thae job working on electrical systems!

I see too many of the same old run of the mill people who say no to this, and they are entitled to their opinion, ask Donnie see his burned up face, and lost limbs and the others around the world who are no longer healthy if they are alive!

70E is in another culture and the NEC is an installation document and should also be a safety code.

Put 70E in an Annex.

While I agree that safe work practices are necessary, I cannot agree with putting either of those documents into the NEC.
I also have run into too many jerks who take the definition of qualified person quoted above and try to tell me that since I did not pay for an extremely expensive training course in the past month or year that I am no longer a qualified person.
We have too many so called safety "experts and/or monitors/inspectors" on jobs that do not know anything about the actual trades work jumping on the workers just to act like sing ****. I have personally seen too much of this abuse in the name of safety to want to see these jerks given any more codes or regulations to use to beat up people trying to do thier jobs.

Yes we do need to teach safety. The best training of job related includes safety. That is the responsibility of the trainers and supervisors. It is not the documentation game that so many so called safety personnel play to insure their own empire gets bigger. True safety comes from those workers who are truly supported by management when they refuse to do work unsafely.

PS: Here's my revised Proposal, if you don't like it send a comment!

Proposed Annex K:

FROM NFPA 70E,

This annex is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for
informational purposes only.
K.1 General Categories.
There are three general categories of electrical hazards: electrical shock, arc-flash, and arc-blast.
K.2 Electric Shock.
Approximately 30,000 nonfatal electrical shock accidents occur each year. The National Safety
Council estimates that about 1000 fatalities each year are due to electrocution, more than half of
them while servicing energized systems of less than 600 volts.
Electrocution is the fourth leading cause of industrial fatalities, after traffic, homicide, and
construction accidents. The current required to light a 7½ watt, 120 volt lamp, if passed across
the chest, is enough to cause a fatality. The most damaging paths through the body are through
the lungs, heart, and brain.
K.3 Arc-Flash.
When an electric current passes through air between ungrounded conductors or between
ungrounded conductors and grounded conductors, the temperatures can reach 35,000°F.
Exposure to these extreme temperatures both burns the skin directly and causes ignition of
clothing, which adds to the burn injury. The majority of hospital admissions due to electrical
accidents are from arc-flash burns, not from shocks. Each year more than 2,000 people are
admitted to burn centers with severe arc-flash burns. Arc-flashes can and do kill at distances of
10 ft.
K.4 Arc-Blast.
The tremendous temperatures of the arc cause the explosive expansion of both the surrounding
air and the metal in the arc path. For example, copper expands by a factor of 67,000 times when
it turns from a solid to a vapor. The danger associated with this expansion is one of high
pressures, sound, and shrapnel. The high pressures can easily exceed hundreds or even thousands
of pounds per square foot, knocking workers off ladders, rupturing eardrums, and collapsing
lungs. The sounds associated with these pressures can exceed 160 dB. Finally, material and
molten metal is expelled away from the arc at speeds exceeding 700 miles per hour, fast enough
for shrapnel to completely penetrate the human body.

My Proposal sent in today:

"Qualified Person. One who has been trained in the skills, and has knowledge related to the construction and operation of electrical equipment and installations, and has received formal documented and certified safety training to recognize and avoid the hazards involved. In addition, one who is certified and authorized to test, energize, clear, ground, tag, and lockout circuits and equipment in accordance with established safety practices and who is trained in first aid and in the proper care and use of protective equipment, such as rubber gloves, hard hat, safety glasses or face shields, and flash resistant clothing, in accordance with established safety practices."

In their memory and for those who have suffered a terrible death or accident and who were untrained and not qualified persons.

Ask Donnie!

http://www.nema.org/stds/fieldreps/codealerts/

The guys that made this safety video probably weren't qualified:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYp0vbebTfs

Joe,

Safety training does not have to be formal and certified to be effective. Your clause would effective render homeowner DIY illegal, and serves only to prop up the safety training industry- classwork is NOT the only way to learn. Sorry, but I can't see NFPA approving it unless you remove all mention of formal training, certification, authorization, etc.

You also fail to mention that a lot (most?) of the electrocutions come not from electrical workers, but accidental contact from other trades. There is nothing we can do to prevent stupidity.

I do agree that there has to be a better definition of "qualified person", but I do not believe this is the best approach.

Joe, as much I respect you drive for safety, it is the person inside each of us that makes the difference. all the mandatory training in the world will not help if the person chooses not to activly paticpates.

A few years back, a co-worker and I put on a week long code training class for our maintenance personnel. We covered all levels of codes and regs all for the applicable codes through loacl, state, federal and OSHA. My agency's current policy only allows that licensed electricans, contractors, and ceritified electrical inspectors (scary) to perform electrical installations and maintenance on our facilities. This discussion turn into a big debate. We went through in detail why this was the way it was and we thought we were pretty thourgh on the matter. 24 hours later, one of the attendees asked me for some electrical parts to do some electrical project. In one ear and out the other. It was not a mandatory class. He attend, he particpated and he went and did his own thing. Just like the comedian Ron White says, "You can not fix stupid."

Also by mandatory the training can be over kill for many. Other trades work in close proximity to electricity. You would have to create a slew of classes for all these exceptions. I attend a 2 day electrical safety class a few years back that was very informal to me because it was geared towards electricians. There were a couple other there that took the class on their own for safety and they were lost through the whole class. The basically got nothing out of the class but a handbook. Granted they stepped in something more then they could handle but they were doing what you are recommending.

I got alot out of the class because I am a geek when it comes to the elctrical trade. If I was like most folks, I would have not gotten that much out of it. I took the course as a refresher. I came home with new information only on one small topic. Some would have said that it was a waste of thier time because they got nothing from it. I am "inside wireman" so I have nothing to do with any thing over 600 Volts. Much of the class was geared towards HV safety. However, I am a, "the glass is half full" kind of guy. I came home with the knowledge that I know what I am doing and how to apply safety in my work.

Many people are set in their ways where if they were in my shoes would have "tuned out" as soon they start to talk about hot sticks and the infamous space or moon suit. In order to reach out to them especically if it is mandatory training, you have to be real specific. Our trade is broad and when you throw in other trades, the field is even broader.

Safety starts at ground level. More rules and regs will not make it better. It has to be managed, not regulated. By more regulations makes it harder to do it right. More rules only makes is more difficult for the person who is doing it right in the first place.

You can submit a proposal now that can recommend that the present definition for a qualified person should never be changed ever again because it is just fine the way it is, in the meantime I will wait to see what the panel decides.

I believe such proposals, and even codes like NFPA 70E, are a great step backward in safety, and will result in MORE injuries, not less.

Pretty bold statement? Read on ....

The US has but TWO universities offering degrees in "Safety Engineering." I once attended one of them. Integral to their curriculum is the actual data that tracks the influence of different approaches to safety.
The short version? Only today are we regaining the safety record we had in the early 70's. What set safety back? In a word: OSHA.

When safety first focused on equipment, there was a very minor reduction in accident rates.
When safety doctrine focused on training and procedures, there was a minor reduction.
When the doctrine changed to focusing on management issues and corporate attitudes, then there was a HUGE drop in accident rates.
Several more recent studies, documenting this very effect, appear in the "Searching for Excellence" series of books by John Peters (Not the ESI guy!)

OSHA came on the scene, got everyone looking at materials and equipment again, and guess what happened? Accident rates went WAY up. It was like stepping into a time machine, and going back 30 years.

So, Joe ... we can take your approach of focusing on 'training' and 'documentation' and 'certification' ... and expect, at most, a minor improvement.

Or, we can rid ourselves of the regulatory albatross, and actually expect folks to act in a responsible manner. Treating adults like children is not conducive to adult behavior.

Or, possibly, the reporting of accidents went way up.

Not likely. OSHA was not the source used for the data. Rather, data from workers' comp, fatalities, etc. - all data a bit harder to fudge - was the basis.

Confirming this point, there have been several case studies where changes in management / culture were matched to changes in accident rates - going in both directions.

In a nutshell, it is the awake, aware, alive worker, who feels 'in control' and is supported by the corporate culture who is safe. If he feels he's just a cog in the machine, with management that believes employees should be seen but not heard - thats' where accidents happen.

Bingo!

Some of the bump in accident numbers might be from the ambulance chasers on TV telling workers they have a claim for things they didn't consider a work related injury. Hurt your leg playing football on sunday and take a dive monday morning at work. File a claim

Greg, I can't fault your healthy skepticism. While figures don't lie ... liars can figure! Alas, I no longer have the source documentation to present to all here.

The trends were dramatic, and the timing -coincident with the creation of OSHA, and their equipment-oriented approach- was unmistakable. Simply put, the return to the 'old way' resulted in an immediate return to 'old accident rates.' Times change, technology changes ... but human nature is the same today as it was in the time of the Prophets.

Speculation about the statistics used in the trends is also cut short by the confirming results brought about by management or attitude changes. For example, some industries are very seasonal ... and those industries have their accident rates skyrocket as the 'busy' season comes to an end. One might consider linking the accident rates to things like fatigue - and folks being concerned over whether they will be laid off THIS week. I'm not talking about 'sprained back' or 'carpal tunnel' here ... I'm talking about the loss of body parts!

These are the very real, injury-producing factors that will never be addressed by either equipment specifications or certification requirements. These are what need to be addressed for a REAL reduction in accidents.

In another thread here, a member is asking how to do something on equipment he has not been trained on. I'll give him credit for asking .... but, if he gets hurt, it will be 'caused' by a company that failed to train him, provide him with the necessary equipment, etc. Oddly enough, it is the companies that hold their management to account that have trained, equipped, safe employees. Companies where management is allowed to say 'not my fault' have more people get hurt. It can be that simple.

I think the biggest aid in the prevention of accidents and minimization of injury in these accidents is in the hands of the workers and job supers. If you see something that is unsafe do something about it. My wife used to be the crazy lady that threw broken or field built ladders in the dumpster and confiscated defective extension cords. Everyone, wears a hard hat, no matter who you are (even the inspectors) and you need safety glasses if you are working around flying stuff. She was a fanatic about keeping the job site clean. You may fall off the ladder but you are landing in soft sand, not rebar and broken block. It may have seemed excessive but their accident rate was lower, simply because it got everyone thinking about safety.
She had some "incidents" but no "accidents" in 5 years and 200 houses.

I see that most of us who work with our hands will agree that the most dangerous person on a job site is the job super who is always yelling about hurrying up and get it done NOW. Most of the time they use the OSHA regulations as an excuse to (1) fire some one they dont like or (2) to cover thier hind end when something goes wrong or (3) find blame when an incident/accident occurs or some combonation of above.
I travel a lot and have seen this far too many times.
An example is a ethonal plant near here now will not let a trade worker on thier property unless that worker has taken the OSHA 10hr course in the past year and has to take it again every year. They will NOT pay for it.
This is the type of B.S. that I personally do not want to give the creators of any more regulation/codes to use as justification for more empire building by so called safety personnel.

Kudos to the Mrs.! When I do inspections on our facilities, I'll cut the plug end off of defective cords. I locked up two buildings last year due to safety problems. A third one darn neared got it too but it was an "easy fix". I'll take safety over quanitity any day.

I remember seeing a sign on one jobsite that read:

Safety engineers are here to SAVE YOUR ASS...not to kiss it!

I mentioned previously that I work in telecom. At work we have weekly (Monday morning) safety meetings, and this week was electricity. We were told in no uncertain terms that ANYTHING 120V or more shouldn't be touched, ANY problems with that part of the install should be reported to the electricians. No exceptions! (The meeting was much more detailed, this was the relevant highlight)
I must say I agree, and think we need more employers that care.

Joe,
I've worked in a LOT of factories, where all the safety rules go out the window as soon as you enter the place.
Mainly because of one thing:
Management, mainly the middle type.

One place where I used to do break-down work, I was greeted by this jumped-up guy saying this:
"Oh you're here!, you're too late, I've already fixed the problem, it was just a blown fuse, I replaced it."

I asked to see the plant room and the switch-board panel that controlled the huge pump that had just had a fuse replaced on it.
I was refused entry, given the excuse:
Don't pretend that you know our plant, I know what is going on here, you don't work here all the time, I do"

I said OK, just let me check the thing, which I was allowed to do.
Looked at the contactor and fuse gear and smelt a burning smell, I shut the thing down.
Opened the fuses up to find 3 fuses shorted out with tinned copper wire and the O/Loads set to manual trip.
This sort of thing really gets my goat.
"Only enough knowledge to be a danger to staff and equipment"

But this attitude of "keep the plant working at ALL costs", is a saddening indictment on modern management, I've seen it all over the place.
Don't get me wrong there are places around that call an Electrician at the slightest murmer from a motor or a problem with a blown fuse.

Just because you are a Supervisor in a factory, does NOT qualify you to go your own merry way with electrical faults.
What you do can kill someone later on down the track.

Don't get me started on bypassing controls and safety systems.
GRRR

I keep hearing assertions regarding 'safety training,' etc. Horsefeathers!

Oh, 'safety is a wonderful concept. However, the bent of these proposals is to REMOVE the worker himself from the safety equation. This is exactly opposite of the claimed purpose of these efforts.

Virtually no one visiting this web site has ANY safety training- at least, as these seminar wonks wish to define it. To them, 'training' only counts if it is the canned presentation, one-size-fits-all rulebook that they attempt to sell at their seminars - AND the dated 'certificate' attendance buys you.

You want safety? The answer lies in Demming's management principles- and NOT the 'industrial engineering' approach too often taken.
The two main principles Demming stressed are:
LET the worker decide. This means no more idiotic enforcement of safety glasses and hard hat rules. Please not it was the enforcement I refer to as idiotic - and not the use of the gear!
Second ... hold management accountable. As Peters (Not the "Mr. Sparky" guy) has well documented, accident rates plummet the moment they start having an impact on management bonuses.

The reason safety glasses and hard hat rules are like they are is if they weren't nobody would ever wear them.
It is very easy to rationalize that you never walk under something that could fall on you and you don't get close to stuff that could fly in your eye but that is just not the way it is on a construction site or industrial venue.
If you don't just get into the habit of wearing safety gear you won't have it with you and you won't feel comfortable working in it.

As always Greg, with some thought your comments are understood and from someone who understands the issues and did some "street time"

I have had safety glasses around my neck on a croakey since I was in the computer business. I wear them everywhere and I slip them on at the hint of stuff flying, even if it is just a heated discussion.
I have them on now

As for hard hats, I beat up a Publix grocery store manager yesterday. They had a sign man working in a bucket truck in front of the entrance and no safety zone around it. There were women pushing baby carriages right under the bucket.
This guy, working alone, was juggling the "U" in the wind.
He needed a cheap slap from me instead of an expensive one from Dewey, Cheatum and Howe, attorneys at law.

I agree Greg, There should be a "safety zone".

However... The women or men pushing babies under the boom...

Thats just plain stupid and any adult should recognize that hazard. The pusher should be punished.

If something went wrong.. They may need Dr. Howard,Dr.Fine, Dr. Howard!:)

You really couldn't see the guy working when you were coming out until you were under him. The bucket truck itself may not have really meant anything to someone who didn't understand what the outriggers, planted, mean. It would be easy to just assume he was parked there waiting for his buddy to get back with the 12 pack.
In real life most people are not really that aware of what is going on around them. They are too busy talking on the phone.

Even if you have a "safety zone" that means squat.. People are actually stupid enough to walk right through it no matter what way you have it zoned off or they will get bent because now you have blocked their most direct path from point A to point B..

A.D

Umm, what is that supposed to mean?
Are you insinuating, Joe, that the rest of us are mere "arm-chair critics"?.

Not at all!

Greg and I go back many years, 1965 NEC, you are also one of the street savvy people in your part of the world too!

WHat consists of a safety zone?? an area coned off? Is there a definiton somewhere of rules you have to follow in order to get a "safety zone"

Joe,


How are you buddy! Long time no talk. Anyway, I believe that NJ has a definition of "Qualified Persons" in their state lic. laws for electricians. I just got my new copy of the NJ laws on Sat. but the are home right now and I am at work. You can scan the NJ Dept. of Electrical Examiners and I believe it is out there.

Caper

A few cones with stakes and some danger tape may have cured that.
I've had the privilege of working in very pro-safety environments (and places with little training or concern for safety; worse than complacent, these guys had a contempt for safety concerns and procedures because it takes too long.)
I do believe (Partly because of liability) that we are the professionals and have a responsibility to protect the stupid from themselves (unfortunately) within reason; Darwin can have the unreasonably stupid ones.

well i agree with Joe on detailed definitions, only to add that some detailed prerequisite education should , by rights, follow along with it as validation

sadly, (and despite heroic efforts by too few...) i think we all know the history of such endevors aren't exactly a national institution....

~S~