Concurrence with two codes

[D Skelton]

I'm currently inspecting an installation which has a small TP pump submersed in a tank which is not readily accessible. The control panel is in an area accessible to staff who according to the on site maintenance team loved just hitting the e-stop because the pump was loud, this caused damaging flooding on numerous occasions. Rather than educating the numpties, the maintenance guys have bunged a thin perspex panel in front of the control buttons. The pump runs automatically so the controls are 'never' needed unless it needs re-setting, but the e-stop is covered too.

Firstly, the e-stop can still be operated if the perspex is pushed firmly enough.

My intuition tells me however that an e-stop isn't neccessarily needed for this particular set up, in fact I'm sure it isn't.

The only regs I can come across that cover this are BS 7671s requirement for a fixed electric motor to have a readily accessible means of switching off and BS EN 60204s requirement for an e-stop to be readily accessible (which may or may not come into play depending on whether the e-stop is required in the first place).

My gut tells me C2, but I am struggling to find any element of danger posed to anyone by the pump or motor, nor any reason why it would need to have a readily accessible means of switching off other that the regulation that demands it. Overcurrent protection is adequate in the event of a fault and the circuit is isolatable (not locally [in order to have another method of a readily accessible means of switching off]) for maintenance purposes.

C3 just seems too lax but am happy to receive opinons to the contrary.


The second issue is with exposed live parts. They are out of reach (above 2.5m) and are only accessible by the two maintenance guys, one of whom is a qualified electrician. They are the terminals on ballasts for fluorescent tubes that are not enclosed but instead left secured in an extended coving providing a light wash on the ceiling. They are accessible by ladder, the only people who have access to are the maintenance guys. My quibble is three fold;

1. The 'installation' is accessible by anyone, regardless of the exposed live parts being out of reach. Something prohibited (depending on your definition of the word 'installation') when using placing out of reach as a protective measure.

2. If you take 'installation' to mean the part of the circuit which contains live parts, then it may conform with the requirements for using placing out of reach as a protective measure, but, there is no requirement (in their job description) for the maintenance guys to be electricians, one of them just happens to be so. This means should he retire or move on to greener pastures, the 'installation' may not be restricted only to a skilled or instructed person.

3. The exposed live parts are less than 2.5m from an exposed conductive part, however there is an obstacle in the way (the extended coving) that would almost certainly prevent any object or person coming into contact with both at the same time.

My gut says C2 as there is no immediate danger present. I can't personally see this warranting a C1 although it is niggling in my mind due to there being exposed live parts that are potentially not covered by any protective measure. I guess some confirmation that I'm making the right decision is what I'm after? Again, happy to receive opinions to the contrary.

 

[Plonker 3]

Can't really comment on the motor as not got much experience in that area to comment on it.

As for the exposed parts being placed out of reach, who has access to that area and how is access controlled to it? I would say if only the 2 people you mention then maybe a C3 as you could use the skilled or instructed persons? If anyone has access I would go C1 as you never can say what could happen in that area.

just my ideas, but as you already know it's you --- on the line if the brown stuff hits the fan.

 

[telectrix]

IMO, a C3 for the first and a C2 for the second.

 

[dingledong]

I'm currently inspecting an installation which has a small TP pump submersed in a tank which is not readily accessible. The control panel is in an area accessible to staff who according to the on site maintenance team loved just hitting the e-stop because the pump was loud, this caused damaging flooding on numerous occasions. Rather than educating the numpties, the maintenance guys have bunged a thin perspex panel in front of the control buttons. The pump runs automatically so the controls are 'never' needed unless it needs re-setting, but the e-stop is covered too.

Firstly, the e-stop can still be operated if the perspex is pushed firmly enough.

My intuition tells me however that an e-stop isn't neccessarily needed for this particular set up, in fact I'm sure it isn't.

The only regs I can come across that cover this are BS 7671s requirement for a fixed electric motor to have a readily accessible means of switching off and BS EN 60204s requirement for an e-stop to be readily accessible (which may or may not come into play depending on whether the e-stop is required in the first place).

My gut tells me C2, but I am struggling to find any element of danger posed to anyone by the pump or motor, nor any reason why it would need to have a readily accessible means of switching off other that the regulation that demands it. Overcurrent protection is adequate in the event of a fault and the circuit is isolatable (not locally [in order to have another method of a readily accessible means of switching off]) for maintenance purposes.

C3 just seems too lax but am happy to receive opinons to the contrary.

It can be stopped but you have to press firmly I think that's the point if it's just firm c3 if it's really firm c2

The second issue is with exposed live parts. They are out of reach (above 2.5m) and are only accessible by the two maintenance guys, one of whom is a qualified electrician. They are the terminals on ballasts for fluorescent tubes that are not enclosed but instead left secured in an extended coving providing a light wash on the ceiling. They are accessible by ladder, the only people who have access to are the maintenance guys. My quibble is three fold;

1. The 'installation' is accessible by anyone, regardless of the exposed live parts being out of reach. Something prohibited (depending on your definition of the word 'installation') when using placing out of reach as a protective measure.

2. If you take 'installation' to mean the part of the circuit which contains live parts, then it may conform with the requirements for using placing out of reach as a protective measure, but, there is no requirement (in their job description) for the maintenance guys to be electricians, one of them just happens to be so. This means should he retire or move on to greener pastures, the 'installation' may not be restricted only to a skilled or instructed person.

But a competent person surely otherwise he wouldn't be a maintenance man

3. The exposed live parts are less than 2.5m from an exposed conductive part, however there is an obstacle in the way (the extended coving) that would almost certainly prevent any object or person coming into contact with both at the same time.

My gut says C2 as there is no immediate danger present. I can't personally see this warranting a C1 although it is niggling in my mind due to there being exposed live parts that are potentially not covered by any protective measure. I guess some confirmation that I'm making the right decision is what I'm after? Again, happy to receive opinions to the contrary.

I thought c1 and c2 were both failures anyway

 

[davesparks]

I thought c1 and c2 were both failures anyway

What is that supposed to mean? There is no pass or fail on an EICR, only observations and recommendations with an overall assessment of either satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

There is a big difference between C1 and C2 and it is important to use them correctly.

 

[D Skelton]

Any thoughts Dave?

 

[HandySparks]

These exposed live parts, are they touchable directly with a finger, or would it require a prod with an un-insulated screwdriver?

 

[D Skelton]

These exposed live parts, are they touchable directly with a finger, or would it require a prod with an un-insulated screwdriver?

If you prodded them with your finger firmly they'd be touchable.

 

[HandySparks]

If you prodded them with your finger firmly they'd be touchable.

I think I'd have to give it a C1 then. If outside maintenance contractors or decorators are ever used who are unaware of the danger, there's a real risk of shock and a fall off a ladder.

 

[davesparks]

Any thoughts Dave?

Yes, I'm trying to work out how to write them down at the moment.

I'm inclined towards C2 for the first one from the point of view that you are reporting on the condition of the installation as-is. So as it stands at the moment there is an emergency stop button which has been prevented from being operated as intended.
However it does sound like it is not required in the installation so the remedial work could be to remove the e-stop, but I don't know enough about 60204 to say if this is allowed.

For the second one I would say C2 also, but am struggling to justify this in regulations at the moment as it is based more on instinct.
I want to say that this is not a situation that placing out of reach would normally be expected to be used for and if it is the kind of thing I am picturing in my mind I doubt the installers would have even considered this.
But we can't go coding things because of instincts or perceived intentions of the regulations!
I would suggest asking the maintainance guys if they are aware of this situation and if they have a system in place for instructing anyone accessing this area.
I think the use of 'skilled and instructed' should require some sort of system for instructing people who aren't skilled prior to accessing such things, eg making it part of the site induction.

I hope at least some of the above makes sense!