Download is a 182k PDF file.
Take a look and add your comments.
http://www.nfpa.org/Codes/National_Electrical_CodeR__NEC/Proposals/necpdf/A100.PDF

Bill

definition;
"the act of stating a precise meaning or significance, as of a word, phrase, or term.
(American hertitage dictonary)

given the techical nature of our trade, and this sections growth, i can see a snowball effect for the future.

This spills over to Art 110, note Log 446.
everthing will be metric, with the english next in parenthesis.
This seems also the shape of things comming.
Add to this that most instructions, or paperwork i recieve in electrical goods have the english section not on top any more, you gotta go flippin' thru a few other langages before you find it !

It's interesting that in log#2104,we are defining the AHJ, while we have a complete new article 80 to address this.

the wordage is even more fun;

AHJ=
federal, state, local, regional, labor dept., fire bureau , health dept ( get that wirenut outta your mouth!) building official, electrical inspector ( knew he/she was in there somewhere.

and that's just for public saftey aspects, for insurance reasons it can be the owner, agent, double agent, 800 phycic hotline, whatever....

[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 02-21-2001).]

Sparky,

No Comment on "Qualified" Person?
Are you really reading these things?
Just kidding, You seem to be skimming over some controversal stuff there!

Come and give us a Comment on this New Definition at: https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000073.html

Bill

(Log #3800)

1- 178 - (100-Qualified Person): Accept in Principle in Part

SUBMITTER: Jack H. Zewe, Electrical Consultants, Inc.

RECOMMENDATION: Revise Article 100- Definition for a

Qualified Person:

Old text:

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

Revised test:

One who has skills and knowledge of the construction and operation of the equipment and has received specific safety training on the hazards involved.

From OSHA 29 CFR: 1910.332(b)(3)

(3) Additional requirements for qualified persons. Qualified persons (i.e. those permitted to work on or near exposed energized parts) shall, at a minimum, be trained in and familiar with the following:

OSHA 29 CFR 1910.332(b)(3)(I)

(I) The skills and techniques necessary to distinguish exposed live parts from other parts of electric equipment.

OSHA 29 CFR 1910.332(b)(3)(ii)

(ii) The skills and techniques necessary to determine the nominal voltage of exposed live parts, and

OSHA 29 CFR 1910.332(b)(3)(iii)

(iii) The safe approach clearance distances specified by OSHA 29 CFR 1910.333 and the corresponding voltages to which the qualified person will be exposed.

Note 1: For the purposes of OSHA 29 CFR 1910.331 through 1910.335, a person must have the safety training required in order to be considered a qualified person.

Note 2: Qualified persons whose work on energized equipment involves either direct contact or contact by means of tools or materials must also have the training needed to meet 1910.333(C)(2)

SUBSTANTIATION: Align the NFPA definition with the requirements of OSHA Electrical Safe Work Practices requirements.

The present definition is weak and does not provide guidance on "who" is authorized to work on electrical equipment that may be energized.

The OSHA Electrical Safe Work Practices Training requirements are very specific on "who" and "what" a person must be able to do (SKILLS)to be considered QUALIFIED.

PANEL ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

Revise the definition of Qualified Person to read as follows:

"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."

PANEL STATEMENT: It is not necessary to repeat OSHA requirements in the NEC. The panel concludes that safety training is important.

NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 13
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 12
NOT RETURNED: 1 Macias

It is a fundamental failure of the NEC, that after 120 years , has no national licensing and looks to have other organizations such as OSHA do their dirty work!

Sparky,
A national license would be unconstitutional. This type of regulation is left to the states.
Don(resqcapt19)

It would be "nice" if there was a standard test or set of requirements so that our licenses were accepted from state to state like our driver's license.

I sure would help the trade if it were so Marty.

The problem seems a "don't touch a slice of my pie" deal , where all the states, counties, and municipalities have set up there own set of standards, and the revenue that follows.

I see a national ticket ( or at least national reciprocity) as a level playing field, and a benchmark to this "qualified" hoo-haa.

I've read a few articles about the big wheels in the trade pointing out that there is going to be a shortage of electricians, and that there are no more in the US than 20 yrs ago.

I'll wager here that the amount of growth in all the bureaucratic, safety, regulating, etc organizations has been exponential in comparison.

So which one will stick up for us? Who's gonna throw this trade a bone here?

After all, the NEC has no problem defining the AHJ in an entire new article #80 ,what's a license? chopped liver?

Don, you and others are probably right in correcting me on this, but I'm not the only one asking, just the loudest.


[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 02-26-2001).]