Qualified Person should be redefined

[BackInTheHabit]

zog:

I am always interested in hearing the opinions from Texas people when it comes to a very severe criminal problem in your State such as:

http://www.license.state.tx.us/PressReleases/candd022808.htm

I wish KY would do the same.

 

[George Stolz]

My proposal is only an attempt to strengthen the definition, and to start the minds of the industry toward the end result ELECTRICAL SAFETY!

Do you see a change to "Qualified person" as actually having a quantifiable change in work practices in the field? Seriously?

I think that anyone who will work on any electrical system should be trained and the present definition indicates that, so what is the problem?

It seems to me as though you're predicting the panel statement with that comment: "The existing wording already achieves what the submitter is proposing."

The key to electrical safety is not found in the NEC, IMO, but in training others to the best of our ability outside the book. Be it on the internet, or in the field.

Just my opinion.

 

[joe tedesco]

Yes

Yes

Yes, time will tell and maybe we need to have rules like they do in Canada so as to save those like Joshua from getting hurt, and suffering an electrocution because they were not qualified or unqualified as 70E says!

What part of the NEC doesn't cover electrical safety?

 

[iwire]

Question: Has the purpose for defining a Qualified Person been so that property owners can use non electricians to perform maintenance on and around electrical equipment? :-?

The NEC and the NFPA have absolutely no input or control on who is legally allowed to perform electrical installations.

That is handled at the local level, some areas still have no electrical licensing and other areas have very strict licensing and permitting rules.

 

[iwire]

What part of the NEC doesn't cover electrical safety?

Of course the NEC covers electrical safety, it just does not cover all aspects of it. :smile:

The NESC covers the utilities, listing and manufacturing standards cover the appliances and utilization equipment.

The NFPA has produced 70E to address the issues of worker protection, no need at all to further enlarge the NEC with issues that are already handled in 70E.

There are many other standards beyond the NEC that ECs need to know, we can not combine them all into the NEC.

 

[charlie]

Bob, you will always have people, like Joe, who want everything in one book. Then you always will have the problem of knowing which book to go to for the rules you are Germaine to a particular installation. Leave the duplication out and you know if you are doing this, you need that.


Examples:

Line work safety by an electric utility, the NESC.

New building construction safety, NFPA 70E

New building construction electrical work, NFPA 70 (the NEC)

​

One of the problems that Indiana has right now is that a home may be wired with the Indiana Electrical Code (NEC with the Indiana amendments) or the Indiana Residential Code (IRC with the Indiana amendments). The two do not agree and Indiana is trying to make the rules agree with the Indiana amendments (not an easy task).

I can't imagine trying to put all of the safety rules in the NEC because someone is not willing to get the training needed in another document such as NFPA 70E. In my opinion, there are not enough people who get the proper training in the NEC now. What will they do if the NEC balloons to the point of encompassing NFPA 70E? :-?

 

[Texhunter7]

Should'nt it be up to each person themself's who is "qualified" or not. I have personally seen a freind get locked up on 277/480 . Who's fault is that his or the person saying they shut the handle feeding that panel off and tagged it out . But they got the wrong handle on the switch gear.

 

[iwire]

Should'nt it be up to each person themself's who is "qualified" or not. I have personally seen a freind get locked up on 277/480 . Who's fault is that his or the person saying they shut the handle feeding that panel off and tagged it out . But they got the wrong handle on the switch gear.

Well to a large extent you should be responsible for your own safety, but without rules in place employees can be put in the position of 'Do it or your fired'.

 

[Texhunter7]

I could not agree with you anymore on the Rule's but anymore it seem's hurry up that's when someone get's hurt or worse. But to be put in the position of you'r fired if you don't is not right . I thought you had to have a Rw, Jw card to work anything "Hot". I guess it all comes down to the training you had coming up through the apprenticeship. I personally try to tell guy's to treat everything as if it's "HOT" at all times even though there is no power there at all.

 

[iwire]

I thought you had to have a Rw, Jw card to work anything "Hot".

OK a bunch to cover

First off OSHA is who sets the rules for working live, they have no interested in if you an apprentice, J-man or Master. Any of those people could be considered qualified or any of those people could be considered not qualified.

To work 'live' you need to be trained specifically how to do so and how to select and use the right PPE (personal protective equipment) it is the employers responsibility to provide that training to those that need to do that work.

All that said......OSHA only allows live work when there is no other way to do it. The fact that a shut down is a pain in the rear, or may cost a lot of money has noting to do with it. Basically unless someone will die because of the shutdown you have to shut it down. Troubleshooting is one of the few exceptions to that.

 

[Texhunter7]

I am not trying to debate with you or anything like that but there are a lot of people out there who really have not had any proper training to work anything "Live". But they do anyway, who's responsibilty is it then when they get hurt or anything happens to them. I agree sometimes you have to work it "Live" but agreed there is a proper way to do so. I have people say it's 120 volts it don't hurt. But when they get locked up on 120 volts then what. But will agree who defines "Qualified Person".

 

[Texhunter7]

I guess the other question i have is a first year apprentice is in a "Hot" panel and goes phase to phase with a screw driver who is at fault there the Journeyman who he is working with or the Elect. contractor? The apprentice should be working under the guideance of the journeyman who should be teaching . Now i know accidents happen but what is the first year doing in a "Hot" panel anyway that is not right. When he could be taught in a panel that is not "Hot" and learn there.

 

[zog]

I am not trying to debate with you or anything like that but there are a lot of people out there who really have not had any proper training to work anything "Live". But they do anyway, who's responsibilty is it then when they get hurt or anything happens to them. I agree sometimes you have to work it "Live" but agreed there is a proper way to do so. I have people say it's 120 volts it don't hurt. But when they get locked up on 120 volts then what. But will agree who defines "Qualified Person".

No one should be working in a live panel. period. See "Working on energized equipment" in safety FAQ's

The NFPA 70E defines a "Qualified person" - Thats is covered in the Safety FAQ's also

 

[Texhunter7]

If you cannot shut down the panel to add a breaker then what? Or if you are changing out a outlet and cannot kill the circuit and something happens who then takes the resposibilty for the situation? I am sure we have all seen it or been in that situation.

 

[iwire]

Don't worry about debating things here, that is what we do.

By the way ... welcome to the forum. :smile:

I guess the other question i have is a first year apprentice is in a "Hot" panel and goes phase to phase with a screw driver who is at fault there the Journeyman who he is working with or the Elect. contractor?

Morally or legally?

If the person was working under me I would feel very responsible.

Who would OSHA go after?

The company that employs the person, without a doubt.

OSHA places ALL the responsibility for training and accidents on the employer. If you blow yourself up OSHA will not fine you, they will fine the company you work for.

And if the company lets an unqualified person work on a hot panel that could have clearly be shut down with some planing they are going to come down very hard on the company.

Again, OSHA does not have any care about how much following the rules costs, or how inconvenient the rules make the job go. There is no gray area for them. You don't work hot except for a very few specific reasons.

The apprentice should be working under the guidance of the journeyman who should be teaching .

Again you will not find the words Journeyman, apprentice or master in the OSHA rules.

A person can be a master but if they have not had specific training for the task they undertake then they are not qualified to do the work and the company that employs them will be held responsible.

but what is the first year doing in a "Hot" panel anyway that is not right.

If the first year apprentice went to specific electrical safety training then they could very well be 'qualified' to OSHA even though they do not have license.

We have to remember OSHA is Federal, licensing is local, some areas do not require any licensing what so ever yet they still can be qualified to do electrical work.

If you cannot shut down the panel to add a breaker then what? Or if you are changing out a outlet and cannot kill the circuit and something happens who then takes the responsibility for the situation? I am sure we have all seen it or been in that situation.

We all have been, but that fact is we have to change our attitude about this.

ALL panels can be shut down, ALL circuits can be shut down it is just inconvenient and costly.

I spend a lot of time working off hours just for that reason. I will be going to a Walmart some night in the near future so I can work inside a panel, it has to be shut down and the only time I can do that is after they close.

 

[Texhunter7]

I will agree with you 100% but i guess i am just trying to understand the real meaning of "qualified". Like i said not trying to debate or anything but just seems to me on that the the "Buck" in a way of speaking i just passed on as to who excepts the blame or wrong doing of a accident to that extreme.

 

[brian john]

First NO WAY ANYONE should let an apprentice near an energized panel.

2nd Every blow up I have been on where someone was hurt the injured party (if they were able too) let it be known they knew what they were doing (qualified?), but something slipped, broke, was hidden. In each case in my opinion the injured was not qualified and had no business doing what he was doing. I would have stated this had I been there prior to the fault. But even when asked most ignore my warnings and do what it is they were going to do anyway.

 

[iwire]

First NO WAY ANYONE should let an apprentice near an energized panel.

So in the areas without any licensing what do you suggest?

IMO if someone has received the proper electrical safety training then they can work in live panels in the rare occasions that OSHA allows it.

 

[iwire]

i guess i am just trying to understand the real meaning of "qualified".

This is long but in my opinion answers your question

This is right from OSHAs website and is a standard interpretation.

September 9, 1993

Mr. Steve Trawick Director,
Occupational Safety and Health
United Paperworkers International Union
P.O. Box 1475
Nashville, Tennessee 37202


Dear Mr. Trawick:

This is in response to your May 6, letter requesting interpretation of Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) electrical standards. Specifically, you requested clarification on employee training requirements to perform work on electrical equipment including servicing and maintenance in the workplace. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding.

The electrical standards at 29 CFR 1910 Subpart S include employer requirements for employee safety with respect to electrical hazards in general industry workplaces. According to subsection 1910.332(a), employees who face a risk of electric shock or other electrical hazards that are not reduced to a safe level by the electrical installation requirements of sections 1910.303 through 1910.308, must be trained in electrical safety- related work practices as required by sections 1910.331 through 1910.335. By subsection 1910.332(a), employees are delineated as either qualified persons or unqualified persons when working on or near exposed energized parts. Qualified persons have training, whereas unqualified persons have little or no training, in avoiding the electrical hazards of working on or near exposed energized parts. Training requirements for "qualified persons" and "unqualified persons" are contained in section 1910.332.

According to paragraph 1910.333(c)(2), only qualified persons may work electric circuit parts or equipment that have not been deenergized under the lockout/tagout provisions of subsection 1910.333(b). These qualified persons shall be capable, as determined by their electrical knowledge and skills, of working safely on energized circuits. This capability includes familiarity with the proper use of special precautionary techniques, personal protective equipment, insulating and shielding materials and insulated tools. Also, this capability includes familiarity with the construction and operation of the equipment and the electrical hazards involved, in accordance with the definition of qualified persons in section 1910.399.
By paragraph 1910.334(c)(1), only qualified persons may perform testing work on electric circuits or equipment. As noted in the preceding paragraph, these qualified persons shall be capable of performing work safely on energized circuits.

Thank you for your interest in Occupational Safety and Health. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.

Sincerely,



Roger A. Clark, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs

Here is the OSHA definition of qualified

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.

Like i said not trying to debate or anything but just seems to me on that the the "Buck" in a way of speaking i just passed on as to who excepts the blame or wrong doing of a accident to that extreme.

I am not following you.

The 'blame' will always be placed on the employer for allowing unsafe work practices or not providing the training.

 

[mdshunk]

The 'blame' will always be placed on the employer for allowing unsafe work practices or not providing the training.

This is true. The employer, normally, will also fire the person who performed the unsafe act if they had documented training that would have told them they shouldn't have done it. In at least two cases with which I am famaliar, the employer's insurance carrier also went after the electrician personally when they have had such documented training such that they knew they shouldn't have done what they did and were't expressly ordered to perform that work hot.