Eliminating Buddy Requirement

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cat Fan

New member
Location
Phoenix, Az, USA
New management in my company is currently working on a plan to eliminate the requirement for a buddy during zero voltage verification procedures on any system less than 120/208 225 amps or less than 277/480 225 amps. This would mean workers would be allowed to work unattended. Our current policy requires an attendant with a rope to pull the worker the gear if he gets hung up. I can find general requirements that talk about emergency procedures but does anyone have any references that I can give them that will articulate why they made this type of rule in the first place. Personally I believe the idea of having worker in panel without any type of observation is creating an unsafe work practice.
 
IMO, it does not serve a useful safety purpose to hang a rope on a guy so he can be pulled off a live connection since if the guy is wearing the required PPE he won't be exposed to any hazardous voltages anyway.

This is not an uncommon "safety" precaution but I would ask if it has ever actually been used to save someone. Far better to just avoid the need to save someone in the first place.

I am not real fond of the idea of restricting it to 225A. That seems very arbitrary. Maybe something like a certain IE level would make more sense.
 
petersonra said:
IMO, it does not serve a useful safety purpose to hang a rope on a guy so he can be pulled off a live connection since if the guy is wearing the required PPE he won't be exposed to any hazardous voltages anyway.

This is not an uncommon "safety" precaution but I would ask if it has ever actually been used to save someone. Far better to just avoid the need to save someone in the first place.

I am not real fond of the idea of restricting it to 225A. That seems very arbitrary. Maybe something like a certain IE level would make more sense.
Click to expand...

maybe not but its the same thing as having a safety observer present during a hoisting operation.
(a couple years back our company decided they didn't need the safety officer on an batch elevator refit.)
150 foot tower the tower crew decided to hoist the belt up the tower with the buckets attached (against the safety regs)
new cable on the hoist broke and hoist jarred off the track and fell on one of the guys
hes still not back to work from the injuries.
a safety person would not have allowed them to proceed on seeing unsafe acts

while wearing ppe does provide protection it cannot protect you from an unforeseen accident and having a second person there is assurance that help will be called for
 
gnuuser said:
maybe not but its the same thing as having a safety observer present during a hoisting operation.
(a couple years back our company decided they didn't need the safety officer on an batch elevator refit.)
150 foot tower the tower crew decided to hoist the belt up the tower with the buckets attached (against the safety regs)
new cable on the hoist broke and hoist jarred off the track and fell on one of the guys
hes still not back to work from the injuries.
a safety person would not have allowed them to proceed on seeing unsafe acts

while wearing ppe does provide protection it cannot protect you from an unforeseen accident and having a second person there is assurance that help will be called for
Click to expand...

IMO, if you need a extra person there solely to enforce existing safety rules, something is very wrong that just having another warm body around is not going to solve.

In any case where would the hazard come from in the case you mentioned since except in very rare cases you are not allowed to work on equipment that exposes you to hazards, and on top of that, in the rare cases where you can work on it live, the rules require you to wear PPE that will protect you from the hazard. What unforeseen accident are you thinking about that would get past the required safety rules and PPE that would be mitigated by having an extra warm body present?

Do the rules require you to take a safety observer with you to the bathroom in case you slip on a wet floor and knock yourself out?
 
petersonra said:
What unforeseen accident are you thinking about that would get past the required safety rules and PPE that would be mitigated by having an extra warm body present?
Click to expand...
To prevent novices, despite the required safety rules and PPE, from getting involved with the accidents in the first place, at least causing property damages.
 
Haji said:
To prevent novices, despite the required safety rules and PPE, from getting involved with the accidents in the first place, at least causing property damages.
Click to expand...

If by "novice" you mean "unqualified" one of the very basic safety rules is that only "qualified" persons are allowed to do any work at all on anything.
 
Cat Fan said:
...Eliminate the requirement for a buddy during zero voltage verification procedures on any system less than 120/208 225 amps or less than 277/480 225 amps...Our current policy requires an attendant with a rope to pull the worker the gear if he gets hung up....
Click to expand...
If energized work is being performed, I'm very much in favor of a second body who:
1) Knows how to render the system safe.
2) Can summon additional help.
3) Is trained to perform CPR.

I'll be frank, the safety regulations I quoted above strike me as written by somebody with very little understanding of electrical safety, and I would not be happy to follow such requirements.

The 225A designation is asinine: That current value has nothing to do with the shock risk, so I fail to see why that would come into play. If there concern is arc flash then they need to have a flash-hazard analysis performed, because arbitrarily selecting 225A does absolutely nothing to tell you what kind of incident-energy a worker could be exposed to; someone could still be very severely burned below that threshold.

Further I've never heard of anyone advocate attaching a pull rope to somebody as an effective safety precaution, besides which it sounds to me like a great way to create and entanglement and tripping hazard. If that is a response method the company really wants to implement then at the very least they need to get the correct gear and issue the responder a rescue hook designed for the purpose.
 
iwire said:
And still you don't get it.

Novices are not allowed to do the type of work being discussed in this thread.
Click to expand...
And still you don't get it.
Novices are allowed to do the type of work being discussed in this thread with a supervisor.
Otherwise, no one would receive onsite training to continue to do such work after the natural death of ''experienced people'' like you.
 
Haji said:
And still you don't get it.
Novices are allowed to do the type of work being discussed in this thread with a supervisor.
Otherwise, no one would receive onsite training to continue to do such work after the natural death of ''experienced people'' like you.
Click to expand...

That is not the way it works here. Until someone is considered "qualified" they are just not allowed to do ANY kind of work.

Novice is just not a term that applies to this type of situation. One is either qualified or one is not.
 
Apprentice, journeyman, electrician, Engineer. They are, no doubt qualified people in their specialty. For example an electrician may be specialized in house wiring. If he likes to do panel wiring work, he may be a novice in that field. How to go about to meet his goal?
 
Haji said:
Apprentice, journeyman, electrician, Engineer. They are, no doubt qualified people in their specialty. For example an electrician may be specialized in house wiring. If he likes to do panel wiring work, he may be a novice in that field. How to go about to meet his goal?
Click to expand...

Well, a few hundred hours of school to start. Then OSHA 10 and OSHA 30 certifications. Followed by CPR and First Aid certs. The must be current certs too, not expired. Then sufficient OJT (On the Job Training), 8000 hours of documented work under the DIRECT supervision of a licensed journeyman. At that point, the person will be ready to take the training needed for the equipment being serviced, and how and when to use PPE.

Even after that, a person may still have to have a partner for a certain period of time before they are allowed to do potentially dangerous work alone.
 
Haji said:
Apprentice, journeyman, electrician, Engineer. They are, no doubt qualified people in their specialty. For example an electrician may be specialized in house wiring. If he likes to do panel wiring work, he may be a novice in that field. How to go about to meet his goal?
Click to expand...

In this country, the requirement is that one be "qualified" to do whatever work one is doing.

One can be "qualified" to operate a pipe threading machine as part of electrical installation while not being "qualified" to use the hammer drill to drill holes in the concrete to install the support straps that secure the conduit in place.

One might be "qualified" to use common hand tools and battery powered tools while not being "qualified" to use tools powered by a line cord.

A person "qualified" to run Romex in a typical residence, might not be "qualified" to splice medium voltage cable.

Normally in a trade, successful completion of an apprenticeship is considered evidence of being "qualified" in the basics of the trade such as the use of common tools and practices. That does not mean one is qualified to do anything to something that has a wire attached to it just because one has successfully completed electrical apprentice training. That is up to the employer to determine.

We have a panel shop here. We do not consider our panels wirers to be electricians. They are far better at wiring panels than any electrician probably is, but they are not qualified electricians. Most electricians probably have the skills and knowledge to wire panels even if they are not especially good at it. They might well be considered "qualified" to wire panels, regardless of the skill level or quality of the work that might result, or how long it might take versus someone who does it every day.
 
Last edited:
For reference, definitions of "qualified" and "qualified person" with regard to on the job training from various codes and standards:

NFPA 70 (2014)
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.

NFPA 70E (2015)
Qualified Person. One who has demonstrated skills and knowledge related to the construction and operation of electrical equipment and installations and has received safety training to identify and avoid the hazards involved.

CFR 1910.399
Qualified person. One who has received training in and has demonstrated skills and knowledge in the construction and operation of electric equipment and installations and the hazards involved.

NOTE 1 TO THE DEFINITION OF ??QUALIFIED PERSON:?? Whether an employee is considered to be a ??qualified person?? will depend upon various circumstances in the workplace. For example, it is possible and, in fact, likely for an individual to be considered ??qualified?? with regard to certain equipment in the workplace, but ??unqualified?? as to other equipment. (See 1910.332(b)(3) for training requirements that specifically apply to qualified persons.)

NOTE 2 TO THE DEFINITION OF ??QUALIFIED PERSON:?? An employee who is undergoing on the-job training and who, in the course of such training, has demonstrated an ability to perform duties safely at his or her level of training and who is under the direct supervision of a qualified person is considered to be a qualified person for the performance of those duties.

IEEE C2 (2012)
Qualified. Having been trained in and having demonstrated adequate knowledge of the installation, constmction, or operation of lines and equipment and the hazards involved, including identification of and exposure to electric supply and communication lines and equipment in or near the workplace. An employee who is undergoing on-the-job training and who, in the course of such training, has demonstrated an ability to perform duties safely at his or her level of training, and who is under the direct supervision of a qualified person, is considered to be a qualified person for the performance of those duties.
 
true enough that a person qualified or under qualified and in training can become complacent in their job and take unnecessary risks in an effort to get a job done faster such as forsaking loto. and refusing to use proper ppe
consider that a lot of people cant wait for the shift to end so they can head to the bars and get plastered. (not me. I'm on heart medication!)

does that give them a good enough reason to disregard safety?

most safety rules may indeed seem ridiculous but if they prevent a death are they foolish?
i don't know about you but i don't want to have to investigate another death (injuries are bad enough):happysad:

while working with electricity a current level during a load may be a nearly consistent level but during a short circuit condition it can be many times greater in the interval before the ocd can trip.

by the way it only takes 0.1 to 0.2 amps (100-200 milliamp) to cause fibrillation in the heart and cause death.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/JackHsu.shtml
 
K8MHZ said:
Even after that, a person may still have to have a partner for a certain period of time before they are allowed to do potentially dangerous work alone.
Click to expand...
Till they become professionals i.e being able to do work alone, they should be considered as novices in that particular field, IMO.
Till such time, are those novices allowed to do live work under the direct supervision of a licensed journeyman? Answer:Yes per post#16!
 
Haji said:
Till such time, are those novices allowed to do live work under the direct supervision of a licensed journeyman? Answer:Yes per post#16!
Click to expand...

No, novices do not get involved in live work activity.

Novices are not 'qualified' and therefore cannot do live work.

Per your posted definition of novice you will see novices are "beginner, learner, inexperienced person, neophyte, newcomer, new member, new recruit, raw recruit, new boy/girl, initiate, tyro, fledgling;" etc.



Now when you look at post 16 you see

has demonstrated an ability to perform duties safely at his or her level of training,
Click to expand...

Someone who 'has demonstrated' or that has been trained cannot be a novice.

And furthermore as a matter of any company safety policy I have worked under 'apprentices' do not assist in live work activities.
 
iwire said:
Someone who 'has demonstrated' or that has been trained cannot be a novice.
Click to expand...
Then who is he or she, a professional?!
Until that person is under the direct supervision of a licensed journey man to do hazardous work per post#16, he/she would still be a trainee and so a novice.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top