# 70E training



## Lone Crapshooter (Nov 8, 2008)

What constitutes proper 70E training. We talk about it at work and we use 40 cal flash suits no hot work (other than troubleshooting) and written procedures. 
How do I know or how can I say that I have been properly trained?
Thanks 
LC


----------



## Jamuz (Aug 8, 2007)

I'd like to hear the answer on this as well.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Hate to say it but if you have to ask I would say your training is inadequate. 

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 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"
2012 Changes - some new berbage coming in 2012 regarding training, mostly regarding documentation of this training, re-training requirements (Not to exceed 3 years), and contractor/employer rules regarding proof of this training.


----------



## Jamuz (Aug 8, 2007)

Zog said:


> Hate to say it but if you have to ask I would say your training is inadequate.
> 
> 
> That's probably why the question was asked:bangin:


----------



## Lone Crapshooter (Nov 8, 2008)

With respect to the 70E definitions of qualified at this point in time I am qualified. The company keeps records of our training or at least they say they do and we are using the 2009 70E .
From the added notes it looks like you can be qualified by one employer change jobs and be unqualified by another.
The engineer that I work for has a his own policy and basically it is regardless of what the information on the flash warning says YOU WILL WEAR A 40 CAL SUIT, HOOD WITH LEATHER SHOES EAR PLUGS AND GLOVES . AND THERE IS NO ROOM FOR COMPROMISE. AND IF THE HAZARD IS GREATER THAN 4 IT WILL NOT BE DONE!!!!! AND IT WILL BE DONE AT A LESSER HAZARD. If that involves a larger outage that's just the way it is.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Lone Crapshooter said:


> ...Regardless of what the information on the flash warning says YOU WILL WEAR A 40 CAL SUIT, HOOD WITH LEATHER SHOES EAR PLUGS AND GLOVES...


 That's stupid. Why even bother to have a flash study done if everything is gonna be mandatory 40 cal?

Obviously dumb rules just build resentment, and they make a necessary safety program into a joke. I really think overboard crap like that does a lot more damage than good.

-John


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Lone Crapshooter said:


> With respect to the 70E definitions of qualified at this point in time I am qualified. The company keeps records of our training or at least they say they do and we are using the 2009 70E .
> From the added notes it looks like you can be qualified by one employer change jobs and be unqualified by another.
> The engineer that I work for has a his own policy and basically it is regardless of what the information on the flash warning says YOU WILL WEAR A 40 CAL SUIT, HOOD WITH LEATHER SHOES EAR PLUGS AND GLOVES . AND THERE IS NO ROOM FOR COMPROMISE. AND IF THE HAZARD IS GREATER THAN 4 IT WILL NOT BE DONE!!!!! AND IT WILL BE DONE AT A LESSER HAZARD. If that involves a larger outage that's just the way it is.


That is the type of polocies you often see from lazy safety managers. I agree with John that crap like that does more harm than good. 

Did your compnay do an arc flash analysis?


----------



## Lone Crapshooter (Nov 8, 2008)

It makes it simple for us. We know what it takes. I carry 1 flash suit rather than 2 or 3.
Yes we had a flash study done.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

Lone Crapshooter said:


> It makes it simple for us. We know what it takes. I carry 1 flash suit rather than 2 or 3.
> Yes we had a flash study done.


So all your labels say wear a 40 cal suit?? That may be creating a dangerous condition by hindering your vision and movement for tasks that don't require it. You have to look at the hazard and the risk, by over protecting for the hazard you have increased the risk.


----------



## Lone Crapshooter (Nov 8, 2008)

No not at all we have 1,2,3,4 and > 4 but when we do switching All switching is done with a 40 cal suit anytime we are in the same room as the switch gear. (that is even if we have remote breaker control panels) We do no other work energized other than troubleshooting and attaching temporary monitoring equipment energized .
Now if I were to work on a motor control center then we would just wear our 10 cal FR clothes unless the warning stated otherwise. The lions share of my work is on the distribution level at 480,2400,4160.and 13.2KV.


----------



## pudge565 (Dec 8, 2007)

My current employer is working on doing the arc flash analysis. They are doing it themselves with the aid of an online calculator. I have told them I don't like the idea of them doing it as I would not even do it and I have more electrical experience than them. They are justifying it with well we don't do a lot of live work we sub contract it. I said well their protective equipment will be based off of those calcs and if they are wrong it could be bad. They wont listen to me. Yea well it isn't my ass on the line.


----------



## mayanees (Jan 12, 2009)

pudge,

I say you are correct sir! It is a very significant liability taken on by whoever generates the AF label, which in your case sounds like it could be incompetent people, so that falls back on your employer.

It's such a competitive field that you should be able to find fair pricing from engineering firms to get the best possible product, which should be an all-inclusive Fault, Coordination and Arc-flash analysis for the electrical system.

John M


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

pudge565 said:


> ...They wont listen to me. Yea well it isn't my ass on the line.


 You go to do some work, the panel label says HRC 2 so you do your work wearing an 8 cal suit. A breaker fails and exposes you to a 40 calorie arc blast because their calculation was wrong. Who's gonna hurt worse, you or the management?

That's the problem: It absolutely *is* your ass, and the ass of every other worker, that's on the line.

-John


----------



## pudge565 (Dec 8, 2007)

Big John said:


> You go to do some work, the panel label says HRC 2 so you do your work wearing an 8 cal suit. A breaker fails and exposes you to a 40 calorie arc blast because their calculation was wrong. Who's gonna hurt worse, you or the management?
> 
> That's the problem: It absolutely *is* your ass, and the ass of every other worker, that's on the line.
> 
> -John


Trust me I am not going to touch anything unless they have proper calculations done. I have already told them that since they say they sub it out anyway. I told them well those workers are using your calcs to decide what is proper. Their reply was "Well lets see what we get for results and compare them to similar installs." I gave up with the argument. You can't argue with ignorance.


----------



## Jmohl (Apr 26, 2011)

Whole time I'm reading the OP, I'm thinking this is deja vu' all over again..... Co. I work for hasn't done arc survey so we are using tables. Planning to do "self help" survey but my argument is that if the data collection isn't done correctly, the whole shooting match is garbage. That and we aren't trained to study mitigation measures that could lower the AF incident energy potentials. (changing fuses, breakers, etc..)


----------

