2002 NEC - "Qualified Person" ?
- Thread starter harley99
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Bremerton, Washington
Re: 2002 NEC - "Qualified Person" ?
What the appropiate safety training is would be determined by the lawyers if an accident occurs....
What the appropiate safety training is would be determined by the lawyers if an accident occurs....
pierre
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
Re: 2002 NEC - "Qualified Person" ?
Safety training can be in many forms. The appropriate training is stated in OSHA, of which I do not have a copy in front of me. There are many programs that are commercially available for contractors and their men, if you do a google search you will come up with a large sampling. If you are interested, NFPA 70E is a good document to keep handy as it is very informative and is referenced in many of the safety cources.
Pierre
Safety training can be in many forms. The appropriate training is stated in OSHA, of which I do not have a copy in front of me. There are many programs that are commercially available for contractors and their men, if you do a google search you will come up with a large sampling. If you are interested, NFPA 70E is a good document to keep handy as it is very informative and is referenced in many of the safety cources.
Pierre
jsinclair
Member
- Location
- Pennsylvania
Re: 2002 NEC - "Qualified Person" ?
This has become a very lively topic in my neck of the woods recently. We are working on a large project involving hundreds of DC power plant upgrades. These upgrades involve the installation of new equipment and removal of older stuff. Our sub-contractors are utilizing "electricians" that they consider to be qualified, but have nothing to back it. IMHO - they are far from qualified. I have witnessed the "qualified electricians" terminating neutrals on breakers, grounds left hanging, and wrong wire/breaker sizing. Not to mention VERY UNSAFE working conditions and practices. (Fortunately for me (us) we can shut down the work until the issues have been taken care of.) These situations really make me wish that the NEC or OSHA would define "qualified" in a clear and concise manner that is not as loose as the current definition. Anybody else???
This has become a very lively topic in my neck of the woods recently. We are working on a large project involving hundreds of DC power plant upgrades. These upgrades involve the installation of new equipment and removal of older stuff. Our sub-contractors are utilizing "electricians" that they consider to be qualified, but have nothing to back it. IMHO - they are far from qualified. I have witnessed the "qualified electricians" terminating neutrals on breakers, grounds left hanging, and wrong wire/breaker sizing. Not to mention VERY UNSAFE working conditions and practices. (Fortunately for me (us) we can shut down the work until the issues have been taken care of.) These situations really make me wish that the NEC or OSHA would define "qualified" in a clear and concise manner that is not as loose as the current definition. Anybody else???
Re: 2002 NEC - "Qualified Person" ?
There was once a system of selecting who could become an electrician. This system was originally intended to permit only the best to get into the trade.
The system became an "old boy" system where only the relatives or close friends of electricians could work in the trade. Unless you were born in the trade, you could not work in the trade.
This system would have excluded Thomas Edison. The same system would have included my son who has brain damage from an illness.
Inspectors and employers are the major persons of authority to control the work quality, it all gets down to the bottom line.
To enjoy our present method of non discrimination and freedom to work, there will be sacrifices.
There was once a system of selecting who could become an electrician. This system was originally intended to permit only the best to get into the trade.
The system became an "old boy" system where only the relatives or close friends of electricians could work in the trade. Unless you were born in the trade, you could not work in the trade.
This system would have excluded Thomas Edison. The same system would have included my son who has brain damage from an illness.
Inspectors and employers are the major persons of authority to control the work quality, it all gets down to the bottom line.
To enjoy our present method of non discrimination and freedom to work, there will be sacrifices.
highkvoltage
Senior Member
Re: 2002 NEC - "Qualified Person" ?
highkvoltage
Senior Member
Re: 2002 NEC - "Qualified Person" ?
The person would have to show he/she passed an approved apprentice program or training. OSHA doesn't except the argument "I've/We've done this for years." If you have been wiring houses for years and have no training certicate or some type of proof that you passed a program and fall off a roof the contractor that employed this person has a huge problem. Gone are the days where dad trained his boy on the job. As far has safety OSHA only accepts training by a person or company that they have approved. Most job around here you have to show at least 10 hours of safety training.
The person would have to show he/she passed an approved apprentice program or training. OSHA doesn't except the argument "I've/We've done this for years." If you have been wiring houses for years and have no training certicate or some type of proof that you passed a program and fall off a roof the contractor that employed this person has a huge problem. Gone are the days where dad trained his boy on the job. As far has safety OSHA only accepts training by a person or company that they have approved. Most job around here you have to show at least 10 hours of safety training.
B
bthielen
Guest
Re: 2002 NEC - "Qualified Person" ?
The problem with "training" is that we usually get around the issue (unfortunately) by providing a certain amount of classroom style training. In Minnesota, correct me if I'm wrong, to obtain a journeyman's license requires specific minimums of documented (by authorized sources) hands-on experience and classroom training. I assume this is to make sure that the individual holding the license is more than just book smart or street smart as "trained by dad". This seems to define a qualified person. I have personally dealt with college educated electrical engineers (EE) that had no practical experience and only the learned booksmarts struggle trying to do the same job I do. At the same time, I lack some of the background expertise that would come along with the engineering degree they have and find them to be a great source of knowledge when I struggle with circuit design issues.
Bob
The problem with "training" is that we usually get around the issue (unfortunately) by providing a certain amount of classroom style training. In Minnesota, correct me if I'm wrong, to obtain a journeyman's license requires specific minimums of documented (by authorized sources) hands-on experience and classroom training. I assume this is to make sure that the individual holding the license is more than just book smart or street smart as "trained by dad". This seems to define a qualified person. I have personally dealt with college educated electrical engineers (EE) that had no practical experience and only the learned booksmarts struggle trying to do the same job I do. At the same time, I lack some of the background expertise that would come along with the engineering degree they have and find them to be a great source of knowledge when I struggle with circuit design issues.
Bob
Re: 2002 NEC - "Qualified Person" ?
At one time we had a requirement that only so many unlic. men could work under a lic. journeyman and that for every 2 or 3 journeyman a master had to be present.
I remember only a handful of instances of inforcement though. It would seem to me that this is a good way of ensuring that you have a qualified work force. The Jmen take responsability for the work performed by the apprentices and the Master takes responsability for the Jmen AND the apprentices. The owner takes responsability for all that work for him.
OSHA requires a competent person be on site.I believe that if an accident occures then the person in charge of safety was not as competent as they should be. Also, the blame is going to have a tendacy toward including the GC also as he is responsable for the entire site.
You can go to the OSHA site and type in "competent" in the search field and get all kinds of info.
As a side note: I know of a case where an owner of a building told the GC that he would paint the building hisself. He brought his own scaffold and 2 helpers and started painting his own building. The scaffold collapsed and they sued the GC and won over a million dollars!
At one time we had a requirement that only so many unlic. men could work under a lic. journeyman and that for every 2 or 3 journeyman a master had to be present.
I remember only a handful of instances of inforcement though. It would seem to me that this is a good way of ensuring that you have a qualified work force. The Jmen take responsability for the work performed by the apprentices and the Master takes responsability for the Jmen AND the apprentices. The owner takes responsability for all that work for him.
OSHA requires a competent person be on site.I believe that if an accident occures then the person in charge of safety was not as competent as they should be. Also, the blame is going to have a tendacy toward including the GC also as he is responsable for the entire site.
You can go to the OSHA site and type in "competent" in the search field and get all kinds of info.
As a side note: I know of a case where an owner of a building told the GC that he would paint the building hisself. He brought his own scaffold and 2 helpers and started painting his own building. The scaffold collapsed and they sued the GC and won over a million dollars!
- Status