nfpa 70e -osha

[jimbo123]

Can a qualify worker [maintenance machanic] who does not do electrical work who was in a 70e class and trained how to use a voltage tester for field training remove and replace a 480v motor of different hp? Would this be considered ok according to 70e or osha ? I asked my supervisor because he allowed this based on a buddy system. This was work for the electricians to spec out and do. There was not a breaker or starter or overload check before replacing. We're p***ed.
How do you make a boss understand he made a mistake ?

 

[WorkSafe]

NFPA 70E 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 to recognize and avoid the hazards involved.

This worker would also have to be trained in Lockout/Tagout, PPE usage and selection.

From what you describe, it sounds like he may not even meet the defintion of "qualified" person as 70E defines.

 

[LEO2854]

That depends on what state you live in..
Some states require that Electrical work be supervised by a licensed Electrician some do not.

 

[jimbo123]

How and where would
training come in with sizing motor wiring c b.
Ol. Theseguys have used plumming fitttings in the pass on conduit.

 

[cornbread]

according to your statement... he is qualified to
use a voltage tester

IMHO with out a electrical training or experience your company is setting itself up for legal action down the road. More importantly the guys doing the work (unqualified) are at risk. Good luck in your efforts with your management!

 

[tryinghard]

The problem with the “qualified worker” definition is some (usually agencies not construction) use it to say "see this person is good-to-go, they can now do electrical" and some really believe this. When there are real electricians involved we know this definition absolutely does not create an electrician!

I recommend using the electrician job description (if it exists) and submit this to management to question their possible misuse of craft, in other words “does this installer meet these qualifications?”

 

[pfalcon]

... How do you make a boss understand he made a mistake ?

How about reminding the boss that when this guy gets injured by:
Arc Flash without PPE, Electric shock on failure to lockout, Exploding meter not rated for the circuit, or numerous other possible causes that the decision to arrest the boss or confiscate the boss's home will rest in the hands of an OSHA employed bureaucrat paid to increase OSHA revenues and justify OSHA existence.

 

[zog]

Can a qualify worker [maintenance machanic] who does not do electrical work who was in a 70e class and trained how to use a voltage tester for field training remove and replace a 480v motor of different hp? Would this be considered ok according to 70e or osha ? I asked my supervisor because he allowed this based on a buddy system. This was work for the electricians to spec out and do. There was not a breaker or starter or overload check before replacing. We're p***ed.
How do you make a boss understand he made a mistake ?

I somewhat disagree with all of the comments made so far.

It depemds on the training he recieved, same rules apply to a master electrician, just sitting though a 70E class does not make either a "Qualified person". The training requirements go betond classroom training and are equipment specific. With the right training, anyone can be considered "qualified" for a specific task, the only person that determines that is the employer.

Let's review the requirements.

According to the NFPA 70E, a ?Qualified Person" is one who is trained and knowledgeable of the construction and operation of the equipment or the specific work method, and be trained to recognize the hazards present with respect to that equipment or work method.

Such persons shall also be familiar with the use of the precautionary techniques, personal protective equipment, insulating and shielding materials, and insulated tools and test equipment. A person can be considered qualified with respect to certain tasks but still be unqualified for others.

An employee that is undergoing on the job training and who, in the course of such training, has demonstrated the ability to perform duties safely at his or her level of training and who is under the direct supervision of a qualified person shall be considered to be a qualified person for the performance of those duties.

In addition, to be permitted to work within the limited approach of exposed energized conductors and circuit parts the person shall be trained in all of the following:
Qualified employees shall be trained and competent in:
?The skills and techniques necessary to distinguish exposed live parts from other parts of electric equipment
?The skills and techniques necessary to determine the nominal voltage of exposed live parts
?The minimum approach distances specified in this section corresponding to the voltages to which the qualified employee will be exposed, and,
?The decision making process necessary to determine the degree and extent of the hazard and the personal protective equipment and job planning necessary to perform the task safely


A few "Zog notes" to add to the 70E definition.
?Only the employer can deem an employee qualified after they have had the proper training and have demonstrated profinency using the skills and method learned.
?There is no such thing as NFPA 70E certification, going to a training course does not make an employee qualified.
?The most misunderstood part of the "qualified" term is that it is all emcompassing, you are "qualified" to work on a specific type or piece of equipment.
?Neither a J-card, a masters license, or an engineering degree make you a "qualified person"
?The word "electrician" is not anywhere in the definition of a "qualified person" meaning these rules apply to all employees and you dont have to be an electrician to be "qualified"

 

[tryinghard]

...The word "electrician" is not anywhere in the definition of a "qualified person" meaning these rules apply to all employees and you dont have to be an electrician to be "qualified"...

Zog - Well put, the whole reply!

 

[jimbo123]

You don t have to be a electrian to be a q p. U should have more than voltage testing for field training. To be qualified to wire motors we belie e they should've trained first.


They seemto think because of the ppe and company made q p the are able to do any electrical work they want.
Thanks

 

[pfalcon]

... Let's review the requirements.

According to the NFPA 70E, a ?Qualified Person" is one who is trained and knowledgeable of the construction and operation of the equipment (emphasis added) or the specific work method, and be trained to recognize the hazards present with respect to that equipment or work method. ...

Peeps swapping motors without inspecting the control circuit or OCPD are not knowledgeable of the operation of the equipment. Therefore they are not a qualified person per 70E to be swapping the motor.

Yes, only the employer gets to label someone as "qualified". And only the employer gets to assume liability when they fail to meet minimum 70E requirements for that label. From the lack of troubleshooting performed, as described in the OP, I feel this to be the case: The employer "qualified" an employee who fails to meet 70E minimum requirements specifically by lacking knowledge of the operation of the equipment.

This is a common employer mistake believing they can apply a title and make everything alright. OSHA isn't going to take the same view.

 

[zog]

Peeps swapping motors without inspecting the control circuit or OCPD are not knowledgeable of the operation of the equipment. Therefore they are not a qualified person per 70E to be swapping the motor.

Yes, only the employer gets to label someone as "qualified". And only the employer gets to assume liability when they fail to meet minimum 70E requirements for that label. From the lack of troubleshooting performed, as described in the OP, I feel this to be the case: The employer "qualified" an employee who fails to meet 70E minimum requirements specifically by lacking knowledge of the operation of the equipment.

This is a common employer mistake believing they can apply a title and make everything alright. OSHA isn't going to take the same view.

I agree with that, my point is that you do not need to be an electrician to be considered "qualified", you can properly train anyone to do a specific task, we see this often in power plants where operators need to be trained and qualified to rack out a breaker for example. Granted, sitting in a classroom seminar is not enough.

My other point is just because you are an electrician that does not make you "qualified", there are plenty of electricians out there that do not have the proper training to be considered "qualified" in the sense we are discussing here.

 

[weressl]

Zog - Well put, the whole reply!

I agree. I always wondered who qualifies the gualifier? There is no uniform and comprehensive detailed training outline. The breadth and width of equipment variety allows for a wide margin of error. This is especially applicable to companies who offer repair and service work for general electrical work and their workers encounter equipment on a daily basis that they haven't seen before, nor do they have the manufacturers operating and maintenance manual available, yet they proceed to service it. As the complexity of equipment rises this becomes more and more of a problem, exposing employees to risk and resulting in far less than optimum repair and service work.
An example. There is a service company who specializes in LV and MV switchgear maintenance. They were refurbishing MV switchgears with a different type protective/control relay, yet the were completely unaware of one of the fixes on the breaker that the manufacturer had implemented and that resulted in the failure to trip under certain conditions.

 

[weressl]

I agree with that, my point is that you do not need to be an electrician to be considered "qualified", you can properly train anyone to do a specific task, we see this often in power plants where operators need to be trained and qualified to rack out a breaker for example. Granted, sitting in a classroom seminar is not enough.

My other point is just because you are an electrician that does not make you "qualified", there are plenty of electricians out there that do not have the proper training to be considered "qualified" in the sense we are discussing here.

To the first point, the training should be either based on the training material provided by the equipment manufacturer, which is getting more lax as time goes by, or even better; by the manufacturer themselves. The manufacturer should also be obliged to inform and/or retrain if any modifications are made to that specific equipment. The training should specifically place limits to the work to be preformed, eg. 'train to task'. There also should be a specific fail/pass test to the effectiveness of the training. Since the industry had failed on both the manufacturer, installers and the user side to implement such methods, the NFPA stepped forward with the implicit support of the Government(OSHA) and created the CYA 70E type rules that is aimed at diverting blame and aiding injury lawyers to the moneypot.

To the second point the comments of the first apply as well.

 

[zog]

I agree. I always wondered who qualifies the gualifier?

An excellent question, what it boils down to is it is the employer responsibility to determine that, they are required to have detailed training records. As an employer, you better have a good enough plan for you to convince a jury you did everything you could. The key here is to do your homework before you hire a trainer and/or consultant. There are a bunch of yahoos out there trying to make a buck on this whole 70E thing that have no idea what they are doing.

There is no uniform and comprehensive detailed training outline. The breadth and width of equipment variety allows for a wide margin of error. This is especially applicable to companies who offer repair and service work for general electrical work and their workers encounter equipment on a daily basis that they haven't seen before,

Exactly, which is why there is no "one class fits all" for 70E. A facillity will have very different training needs than a field service group.

nor do they have the manufacturers operating and maintenance manual available, yet they proceed to service it.

Why wouldn't they? That should always be on the job site. And it should be the most recent rev of that document.

As the complexity of equipment rises this becomes more and more of a problem, exposing employees to risk and resulting in far less than optimum repair and service work.
An example. There is a service company who specializes in LV and MV switchgear maintenance. They were refurbishing MV switchgears with a different type protective/control relay, yet the were completely unaware of one of the fixes on the breaker that the manufacturer had implemented and that resulted in the failure to trip under certain conditions.

Anyone who does this sort of work should be up to date on all revisions, recalls, SIL's, SAL's, notices, revisions, etc. Every breaker that comes in my shop is inspected to make sure it has all of the correct parts or changes that have been released by the OEM since it was manufactured. I am working on a notification system for my entire customer base that will alert them when these are released for equipment that they own if they choose to sign up for that free service.

 

[weressl]

An excellent question, what it boils down to is it is the employer responsibility to determine that, they are required to have detailed training records. As an employer, you better have a good enough plan for you to convince a jury you did everything you could. The key here is to do your homework before you hire a trainer and/or consultant. There are a bunch of yahoos out there trying to make a buck on this whole 70E thing that have no idea what they are doing.

Exactly, which is why there is no "one class fits all" for 70E. A facillity will have very different training needs than a field service group.
Why wouldn't they? That should always be on the job site. And it should be the most recent rev of that document.



Anyone who does this sort of work should be up to date on all revisions, recalls, SIL's, SAL's, notices, revisions, etc. Every breaker that comes in my shop is inspected to make sure it has all of the correct parts or changes that have been released by the OEM since it was manufactured. I am working on a notification system for my entire customer base that will alert them when these are released for equipment that they own if they choose to sign up for that free service.

Unfortunately you are the exception, not the rule.

 

[zog]

Unfortunately you are the exception, not the rule.

My wife says the same thing

 

[tryinghard]

...They seemto think because of the ppe and company made q p the are able to do any electrical work they want. Thanks

jimbo, I feel your pain - these beliefs have been passed ahead from past managers. They seem to lose perspective (if they ever had any) that electrical done wrong is not only a life threatening hazard to the installer but any future user or passerby'r. Problem is I think these type managers run with the mentality "aint nobody dead yet must be fine", it?s a real paradigm shift in these cases.