PIR code help please

[jedisparks]

Hi all

just after a couple of opinions on PIR codes

generally im using the ESC good practice guide as a base for my PIR coding but there are couple im not sure about:

this is for a factory:

A 3 phase machine isolator supplying 2 seperate machines (code 4)

A 3 phase circuit breaker supplying 2 pieces of equipment, they are totally different, one is a set of roller doors and the other is a saw (code 4)

A 3 phase machine connected without an isolator seperating all poles before the machine. (code 4)

None are particularly dangerous, what do you think?

Many thanks in advance

 

[nickblake]

Hi all

just after a couple of opinions on PIR codes

generally im using the ESC good practice guide as a base for my PIR coding but there are couple im not sure about:

this is for a factory:

A 3 phase machine isolator supplying 2 seperate machines (code 4)

A 3 phase circuit breaker supplying 2 pieces of equipment, they are totally different, one is a set of roller doors and the other is a saw (code 4)

A 3 phase machine connected without an isolator seperating all poles before the machine. (code 4)

None are particularly dangerous, what do you think?

Many thanks in advance

in factory conditions id Code 1 the lot reason being , you siwtch off an isolator thats supplying 2 machines you could put the person operating the other machine at risk , same with the roller doors and saw if you isolate the doors when a guy is cutting a piece of wood , he could also be put at risk ,and the last one if an incident happend on a machine guy got his hand stuck in it how do you switch it off isolate , also point out that all these machines should have emergency stop buttons etc

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Not sure on this one....as far as I can see there is nothing in Bs7671 to prevent an isolator serving more than one machine,unless I am missing something in which case please quote the reg.....I cant see how it can be a code 1,as long as the isolator is clearly labelled as to what it isolates.Regarding a potential danger from isolating another machine,the same thing could happen if each machine has it's own isolator but not labelled,and the wrong isolator was turned off.
Clear labelling is the key....if the isolators are properly labelled no code..(unless I'm missing the reg in 7671.If you are going to code it 4 there has to be a reg it does not comply with,132.15.2 is the best I can see but does not specifically state that an isolator can only serve one motor.)....if the isolators are not labelled code 2.

 

[nickblake]

IT comes under electrical sepereation : Provided for one item of current using equipment , sorry cant give you the reg no as apprentices is in college tonight and hes nicked my regs

 

[Des 56]

I think nickblake made some excellent common sense points

It may not be actually written that an isolator cant be used, but the installation should be constructed so has to prevent danger to the user

That danger can come from the points he made
Also the circuits should have adequate overcurrent protection for the supply and for each machines seperate supply and, I would say individual means of isolation.even if that isolation were present,the danger that nick points out would be still there(unless the isolator for the 2 were locked in the on position )

 

[Guest123]

IT comes under electrical sepereation : Provided for one item of current using equipment , sorry cant give you the reg no as apprentices is in college tonight and hes nicked my regs

Not sure I agree with you on this one Nick, Electrical Seperation is where a piece of current using equipmnet is afforded the fault protection method of being electrically seperate from the source earth, a shaver socket for example.

 

[Des 56]

Not sure I agree with you on this one Nick, Electrical Seperation is where a piece of current using equipmnet is afforded the fault protection method of being electrically seperate from the source earth, a shaver socket for example.

Yes I agree and I think ups comes under it

 

[Guest123]

and I think ups comes under it

It does indeed.

 

[telectrix]

i agree mainly with nick, regs apart, if there is any potential danger to personnel, code1. IMHO

 

[nickblake]

At this moment im banging my head against my desk , i need a day off , .......................... Sorry chaps i made an error on this one , having said that when working in the industrial sector and seen some very close calls , electrical isolation for instance ,inconvieniance , if a machine is faulty you loose 2 machines , but with some of the machines especially big band saws with ES and electronic brakes you switch the supply off and you could be in big trouble , there was a point made about labling and i 100% agree with that ,bt as we know we know what it means does the guy working on the machine or in a panic situation thats realy the point i was making , i will throw my hand up i did make an error

 

[Guest123]

@Nick, Dont worry about it, I agree with the points you made regarding isolation particularly with industrial machines involved.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

i agree mainly with nick, regs apart, if there is any potential danger to personnel, code1. IMHO

A code 1 has to represent a real and immediate danger.....I cant agree that is the case here, but a code 2 may well be justified IMO,it is down to the inspector at the end of the day though.

 

[nickblake]

I think nickblake made some excellent common sense points

It may not be actually written that an isolator cant be used, but the installation should be constructed so has to prevent danger to the user

That danger can come from the points he made
Also the circuits should have adequate overcurrent protection for the supply and for each machines seperate supply and, I would say individual means of isolation.even if that isolation were present,the danger that nick points out would be still there(unless the isolator for the 2 were locked in the on position

I wouldnt disagree entirely...but code 1?....a real and immediate danger?....I'm really not sure on that one,and you have to go very careful applying codes to things which cannot be backed up by a regulation even if you would not do it that way....a code 2 may be justified I feel.

I agree with what you have said perhaps im a little paranoid , i just get so frustrated when i get a test sheet and all its got on the deviations is CODe 4's which doesnt realy high light the dangers ,i do like to use the code as they were laid out for so much easier for the customer to under stand ,

 

[Des 56]

Nick, that quote you pasted had me thinking ,"I'm sure i didn't say that"
then it twigged
I cant write in red

 

[nickblake]

Sorry about that des lol fingers not quite sure what the brains saying at the mo lol Red ink make me feel as im back in school supose i am the forums great for info thanks to the guys that runs it

 

[telectrix]

i'm going to get shot for this but anyway. IMO metal fittings and switches on a non-earthed lighting circuit are not a real and immediate danger until a fault occurs, but it's code1

 

[Deleted member 9648]

i'm going to get shot for this but anyway. IMO metal fittings and switches on a non-earthed lighting circuit are not a real and immediate danger until a fault occurs, but it's code1

I wouldnt shoot you for that one,earth faults are common on lighting circuits to say the least so a danger could arise at any time....I go with the recommended 2, which still means an unsatisfactory,but it is the inspectors call in the end.

 

[malcolmsanford]

This coding system is the most inane and toothless thing the regs have done, They are even changing it again in the updated edition to just 3 codes this time.

Get a room full of electricians and they will all come up with different codes for different observations, but unfortunately there isn't a better or simpler way to do this, or is there? any ideas

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Yep....'discussions' over what code to apply are constant......but I cant think of a better way of getting across to a non electrical recipient of a PIR what is required. The code based on the inspectors point of view are always going to result in inconsistancies though.

 

[malcolmsanford]

Yes but after listing 100,s of observations, you would find one that was not on it.

Also a clear one for me is blanks missing on a DB. I was doing a PIR a few years back and missing blanks on a 3 phase board as a code 1. I called a another sparks I worked with sometimes and asked if he had any MEM blanks. When he came over with them, he asked why I coded it a 1, obvious to me, it was. He told me he would have coded it a 2 as the board had a 4 screws to secure the cover and a use of tool would be needed to open it, a code 2 for him.