Local Isolation For A/C Internal Units

ebee

Well put but again, no fraud if the client requests that information. Like I said they give the go ahead for the remedials after receiving a detailed report and they are engineers.


OK. Thanks for the responses everybody.


I already thought that local isolation wasn't a requirement of the regs when this issue came up last year. The five other sparks I work with say it is. I think this is a misunderstanding of 464.2 of the regs.

I must admit that I was always under the impression (until recently) that a "local" isolator was required for all types of equipment that could cause injury if energized when repair or maintenance work was being carried out. This may be because of reasoning and nothing to do with the regs. I have checked my 16th ed regs 1992 before amendments and it says nothing about local isolators there either yet I would have sworn blind that that was where I first got it from.


If I was working on that equipment I would feel safer if the isolator was local to the equipment. If it was remote from it, I know you test to make sure it's dead before working on it but what if it was already locked off. You can't test live first, then isolate, then test dead.

Example scenario. 12 rotating machines that would rip your arm off with no warning if energized. 4 are already isolated. 3 have been repaired and have been signed off the go back into service. I'm working on the last one. I test for dead. Someone comes along and turns on the 3 and leaves the one I'm working on isolated. However, all 4 were turned off at the same time and they have been marked up wrongly. I'm working on no 4 and nos 1,2,3 are turned back on. however 3 is really 4 and 4 is really 3. I've lost my arm. If the isolators were local to the equipment I would still have my arm.

I also think there is a psychological aspect of it. I feel safer if the isolator is within sight then if it is remote. That might be what drives the "local isolator" reasoning.

Before anyone comments about my reasoning above doesn't mean it's reportable with a code whatever, I know. I'm only giving some reasoning here as to why have a local isolator not to report that there's no local isolator.


After going onto the A/C forum website I can see that A/C maintenance engineers prefer to have local isolators on internal units. They complain about installers not doing it.

They should get together and lobby for it to be part of a British Standard. Anyway, that's their problem.

Researching into the relevant part of the regs show that isolation is required only but not local isolators.


Now to throw a spanner in the works:

Reading some of the A/C installation manuals on line they also say to put a local isolator on the internal unit.

It is a requirement of the regs to follow manufacturers installation instructions.

Can't remember the reg. Searched for it but can't find it. I know it's there somewhere.

Therefore, if there is no isolator internally is this not non-compliant, not with the isolation part of the regs but with the requirement to follow manufacturers instructions?


By the way. We don't list observations. We sent them in individually by email. Location, description of fault, picture. If it's a code 1, pic before repair and after. When I learned about the fact that the regs don't require "local" isolation last year I mentioned that to the supervisor. He said we must still report it. This must be by arrangement as they have been doing work for them for the past 20 years.  How coded and non coded items are then sent to the client is up to them. All items end up on the same sheet. Most will be coded and some not.


I can't believe it. I was supposed to be relaxing this weekend and not thinking about work.

ebee

Well put but again, no fraud if the client requests that information. Like I said they give the go ahead for the remedials after receiving a detailed report and they are engineers.


OK. Thanks for the responses everybody.


I already thought that local isolation wasn't a requirement of the regs when this issue came up last year. The five other sparks I work with say it is. I think this is a misunderstanding of 464.2 of the regs.

I must admit that I was always under the impression (until recently) that a "local" isolator was required for all types of equipment that could cause injury if energized when repair or maintenance work was being carried out. This may be because of reasoning and nothing to do with the regs. I have checked my 16th ed regs 1992 before amendments and it says nothing about local isolators there either yet I would have sworn blind that that was where I first got it from.


If I was working on that equipment I would feel safer if the isolator was local to the equipment. If it was remote from it, I know you test to make sure it's dead before working on it but what if it was already locked off. You can't test live first, then isolate, then test dead.

Example scenario. 12 rotating machines that would rip your arm off with no warning if energized. 4 are already isolated. 3 have been repaired and have been signed off the go back into service. I'm working on the last one. I test for dead. Someone comes along and turns on the 3 and leaves the one I'm working on isolated. However, all 4 were turned off at the same time and they have been marked up wrongly. I'm working on no 4 and nos 1,2,3 are turned back on. however 3 is really 4 and 4 is really 3. I've lost my arm. If the isolators were local to the equipment I would still have my arm.

I also think there is a psychological aspect of it. I feel safer if the isolator is within sight then if it is remote. That might be what drives the "local isolator" reasoning.

Before anyone comments about my reasoning above doesn't mean it's reportable with a code whatever, I know. I'm only giving some reasoning here as to why have a local isolator not to report that there's no local isolator.


After going onto the A/C forum website I can see that A/C maintenance engineers prefer to have local isolators on internal units. They complain about installers not doing it.

They should get together and lobby for it to be part of a British Standard. Anyway, that's their problem.

Researching into the relevant part of the regs show that isolation is required only but not local isolators.


Now to throw a spanner in the works:

Reading some of the A/C installation manuals on line they also say to put a local isolator on the internal unit.

It is a requirement of the regs to follow manufacturers installation instructions.

Can't remember the reg. Searched for it but can't find it. I know it's there somewhere.

Therefore, if there is no isolator internally is this not non-compliant, not with the isolation part of the regs but with the requirement to follow manufacturers instructions?


By the way. We don't list observations. We sent them in individually by email. Location, description of fault, picture. If it's a code 1, pic before repair and after. When I learned about the fact that the regs don't require "local" isolation last year I mentioned that to the supervisor. He said we must still report it. This must be by arrangement as they have been doing work for them for the past 20 years.  How coded and non coded items are then sent to the client is up to them. All items end up on the same sheet. Most will be coded and some not.


I can't believe it. I was supposed to be relaxing this weekend and not thinking about work.